From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 01:30:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20830 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h515U2I03067 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:30:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h515U2B03064 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:30:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20826; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MLOB-0003i9-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:28:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MLOB-0003i6-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:28:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h515SUB03016; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:28:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h515RaB02990 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:27:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20803 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MLLp-0003ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:25:49 -0400 Received: from 000-254-439.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.186] helo=68.27.233.186 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MLLn-0003hq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:25:48 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030601012711.00b9fa18@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org, "Eric Dean" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:27:12 -0400 At 09:24 PM 5/31/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > >a) I am a sender with a CRI system and send a message to a recipient > with a > > >CRI system. My CRI system remembers I sent a message to a particular > > >recipient. > > >b) The recipient receives my message and holds it. The recipient > sends me a > > >challange message with CRI headers. > > > > If we were using some form of SMTP-model, then the recipient would not > > actually accept the message. Instead his system would issue some form of > > SMTP error code back, something like "450 Need to verify sender". This > will > > force the sender's system to hold on to the message until the C/R process > > runs its gamut. > > ... > >SMTP clients that merely follow RFC 2821 without knowledge of your >CRI system will retry the message on their normal schedule. >See section 4.5.4.1 of RFC 2821. > >You are surely not assuming that all SMTP clients in the Internet will >be replaced before you turn on your CRI system. So you must be assuming >that SMTP servers can recognize retransmissions of the same message >or same sender and not challenge a second time. Have you considered >the practical difficulties of that? I was thinking of defining such SMTP protocol not for general use, but rather as an alternative for cases where both the sender and receiver have C/R systems and want to shift the storage of messages to the sender. This would be accomplished by defining an ESMTP extension that is following these guidelines, NOT via general SMTP traffic. All existing clients and SMTP servers, would use the general CRI protocol as defined by Eric. Any C/R systems that are capable of performing C/R via ESMTP, would agree to use it with an option to fallback to the general CRI protocol. As for the re-transmissions, the unique C/R token can only be used once and would stop the message from being re-transmitted more than once. >By the way, how do you handle MX secondaries? What if the SMTP client >happens to choose different MX servers for its attempts to send the >message? How do you avoid sending a challenge from each MX server, >in practice and not merely theory? Any C/R system at least on the receiver's end would have to keep state in order for C/R to work. However, my understanding that in a general C/R system the MX servers are not required to keep that state information but rather that can be offloaded to the the back-end system, with the MX servers just accepting the transmissions. In practice I do not know what existing C/R systems do for state information - whether its kept on MX level or back end (perhaps some of the C/R people on the list can provide information on that). In this system that I proposed, such state information would have to be shared among all the MX servers and the obvious problem with that would be that such sharing requirement would be hard to implement in large systems. I am not advocating this specific approach, just using it as an example of how the entire C/R handshaking process can be done via some direct protocol instead of having the receiver's system accept and parse the message before sending a challenge. Some form of a direct C/R-to-C/R protocol would help interopable C/R systems save on storage costs and perhaps it should be something we add to the draft CRI specification. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 02:58:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03638 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h516vqF19022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:57:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h516vqB19019 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:57:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03631; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MMl9-0004De-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:56:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MMl8-0004Db-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:56:02 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h516rNB18936; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:53:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h516q9B18909 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:52:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03605 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MMfc-0004D0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:50:20 -0400 Received: from 000-254-439.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.186] helo=68.27.233.186) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MMfa-0004Cx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:50:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030601025142.00b9fa18@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vern Paxson , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] (Position): Successful anti-spam techniques must avoid software patents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 02:51:43 -0400 I posted a draft list for IPR claims online. Its available at http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html. The only claim I listed there is the MailBlocks patents, I will be filling in more information once I go through the mailing list archive. I will be monitoring the mailing list and add any IP claims mentioned on the list. Yakov At 11:48 PM 5/29/2003 -0700, Vern Paxson wrote: >Peter Kay writes: > > > Is this discussion of IPR policy within the scope of this list's > > discussion? > > > > I look at : > > > > http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ > > > > And read the posting guidelines which say all conversation must be > > related to the work items at > > > > http://www.irtf.org/asrg/asrg-work-items.txt > > > > and there's nothing there about IPR. Perhaps IPR is a bigger issue to be > > taken at higher levels. > >Given that the IRTF does not have a formulated IPR policy, and that IPR >issues are potentially of significant concern to this RG due to the >participation of a number of folks from the commercial world, I don't have >a problem with productive discussion of IPR issues on the mailng list in >this context. > > > As one who has patent-pending on an anti-spam technology, I've got a lot > > to say but won't if its inappropriate for this list. > >If you are not willing to disclose where this potential IPR resides, then >Yes, I think it would be inappropriate to participate in discussions that >relate to it. If you're willing to disclose its existence, then I think >participating is okay. > > Vern >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 10:51:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14278 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51EpQt16459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:51:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51EpQB16456 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:51:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14204; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MU9R-00004L-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:49:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MU9Q-00004I-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:49:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51EjOB14711; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:45:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51EimB14677 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:44:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13862 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MU31-0007lQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:42:59 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MU30-0007lM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:42:58 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [66.77.69.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 303C013A12; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A13BF8A200D0; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:44:11 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030531222202.00b43b60@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:46:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > If we were using some form of SMTP-model, then the recipient would not > actually accept the message. Instead his system would issue some form of > SMTP error code back, something like "450 Need to verify sender". > This will > force the sender's system to hold on to the message until the C/R process > runs its gamut. Yes, this would be about as efficient as RMX. I'm guessing that the CRI systems would have to first negotiate their capabilities. In other words, if I send a 450, I don't know if the remote system is churning through it's database to look for a message sent to me or not. If someone says they are CRI capable, then I should not accept a message if they do not supply a Response String. If they aren't CRI capable, then I should accept the message and do whatever I do with mail. Another area of concern is that an SMTP method does not allow for client software to perform the CRI process. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 11:03:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14807 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51F3EN19061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:03:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51F3EB19058 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:03:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14801; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MUKq-0000FT-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:01:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MUKq-0000FQ-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:01:24 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51Ew9B18531; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:58:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51EvqB18498 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:57:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14647 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MUFf-0000CO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:56:03 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MUFe-0000C9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:56:02 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [66.77.69.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 45F101397A; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A44B2BCD01EC; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:57:15 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Scott Nelson" , Subject: RE: ADV: (was Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in the House of Representative) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 10:59:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We've had some customers ask for a variety of lists: Whitelist: Those senders or domains I want to immediately receive email from Blacklist: Sender or domains I do not want email from Greylist: Sender or domains I want challenged (often the default) Charcoal-list: Sender or domains or content that may very well be spam..often a scoring system with some RFC checking, RBLs, or heuristic filter can be applied here. Now, who the hell would want to check so many silly lists...well..we have some customers that receive 200 spams per hour...and hopelessly need such a method. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Scott > Nelson > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 1:28 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: ADV: (was Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in > the House of Representative) > > > >Is a 'whitelist' the converse of a 'blacklist'? > > > > No. At least, not the common usage of the two terms. > The difference lies in things that are not listed. > Blacklist implies that unlisted things are trusted. > Whitelist implies that unlisted things are not trusted. > > IMO most of the current white/black lists should be tri-state. > For example; tested open relay, tested not open relay, untested. > (Well defined metric scores with the additional "unscored" value > would be even better when possible.) > > > Scott Nelson > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 13:02:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21791 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 13:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51H1tJ22462 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 13:01:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51H1tB22459 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 13:01:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21766; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 13:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MWBk-0002Mc-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MWBj-0002MZ-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:00:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51H0YB22304; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 13:00:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51GrVB20893 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:53:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21395 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MW3c-0002FN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:51:44 -0400 Received: from law12-f4.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.4] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MW3c-0002Et-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:51:44 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:52:58 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 16:52:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2003 16:52:58.0090 (UTC) FILETIME=[411C0CA0:01C3285E] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:52:57 -0600 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by www1.ietf.org id h51H0YB22304 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h51H1tB22459 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is in response to the entire thread, not any particular message. One major problem I see with Titan Key is that it relies on SMTP. If at some point SMTP is superceded by another protocol this type of system will no longer be useful (Perhaps the idea would be useful, but not the actual implementation. This implies the broader question: Should the ASRG support methods that rely on the SMTP protocol to work? Many have pointed to the SMTP protocol as a source of problems, and I personally believe the chances of SMTP being the standard email transfer method in 20-50 years are slim. I see any solution that cannot stand on it's own, independent of protocol, as a temporary bandaid on the larger problem (unless that protocol is perfect and will never ever be changed for all of time). Any support for an old protocol simply extends it's life, and SMTP is showing it's age. Also, changing how SMTP is handled to do extra checks can make MTAs more vulnerable to resource consuming Denial of Service attacks because every mail message received requires more resources in the receiver than the sender. I see the solution to this as a decision about whether or not ASRG should invest it's time and effort in a protocol that is old, and subject to abuse. If the answer is no, then i believe much of the constant bickering over specific details in SMTP can be avoided. Solutions discussed here might be more forward looking, and less reliant on squeezing as much as possible from what we have. I have often theorized that people can be divided into a spectrum by how much effort is put into making money, and how much is put into saving money… People at the extreme ends of the spectrum use almost all of their energy on one or the other. There are people who almost live on coupons, and free deals, and there are people who are so focused on making the money that even taking the time to go shopping would be a waste. It is the people in the middle who seem to struggle the most with the balance. They are not as efficient at either one, so their less effective saving of less money combine to cause money problems. I believe the way to go is the production of resources, rather than the saving of resources. In this group I believe we should not scrape the bowl to find every last crumb of good in what we have now... Enough people are doing that. I believe that we, as a Research group, should be the most forward looking group that we can be. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 14:28:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27573 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51IRrl19948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:27:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51IRrB19945 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:27:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27566; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXWt-0004Af-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:26:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXWt-0004Ac-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:26:03 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51IQLB19417; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:26:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51IPsB19372 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:25:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27489 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXUz-00049B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:24:05 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXUz-000498-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:24:05 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:13:22 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:13:44 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32848.02C531E0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Whitelist conforming definition Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 13:06:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Group; After perusing the current submissions to the information call I made "please define 'whitelist' as it is being used..." The following is the conforming definition to date. Please note this is a definition that has been abstracted from all of the submissions, it is not meant to represent the precise definition but a consensus gathered from all of the submissions, to wit: Whitelist - Used in the context of e-mail processing for storage or forwarding to a recipient, a whitelist is a list of attributes which is used to match against incoming email. Mail that matches a specified attribute or attributes is passed to the recipient without further processing. Whitelisting - The addition of specified attributes to a 'whitelist' used to identify messages from senders that are 'whitelisted.' The attributes may be developed from a number of different sources of information, including but not limited to information in message headers [1,2], protocol information [3,4] or user input. The term 'blacklisting' is sometimes used as a converse of the term 'whitelisting', but this use is not well defined. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 14:50:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27931 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51Injg21641 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:49:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51InjB21638 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:49:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27921; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXs3-0004Gs-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:47:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXs3-0004Go-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:47:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51Im9B21488; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:48:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51IlFB21448 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:47:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27804 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXpd-0004EZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:45:25 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MXpd-0004EW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:45:25 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OWL61439; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-222-194.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.222.194]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AHN12212; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'John Fenley'" , Subject: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Message-ID: <001801c3286e$3d7b9a10$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h51IlFB21449 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 14:47:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John Fenley wrote re: SMTP and SMTP related research: > a decision about whether or not ASRG should invest it's time > and effort in a protocol that is old, and subject to abuse. Whatever our individual feelings about the long-term utility of SMTP may be, the reality is that the output of this group is going to be judged based on its ability to point to solutions that can reduce the level of spam in the short to medium term. People feel the pain today and want it to go away soon. To tell people that we have a solution that will work in some far distant future, after everyone has converted to some new and "better" protocol, may be intellectually satisfying, however, it will be perceived as having limited utility. I believe that the research needs, at this stage, to focus on how one can best respond to spam given the current environment (including SMTP) and small deltas to that environment. This research may be informed and assisted by observations concerning how spam might be prevented in some "ideal" environment that might include new protocols, however, the focus should be on solving the present problem. Once the present problem is solved, or alleviated as well as possible, it would then, and only then, be appropriate to focus the majority of effort on addressing the issue of constructing a future "ideal" set of protocols. The issue here, as almost always, is a trade-off between tactical short-term and long-term benefits. It is very much like computing the present-value of some quantity of money. For instance, what has more value? $100 in your bank account today? Or, $1,000 in your bank account in 20 years? The answer, of course, depends on what you think the interest rate or cost-of-capital is. Similarly, when thinking about spam, you can ask which is more valuable: A system that rapidly limits spam to 50% of its current level or one that eliminates it completely in five years? In the context of spam, the cost-of-capital or interest rate is the "pain and cost" of the growing levels of spam. If you think that this pain is low, then you would be more likely to focus on the long-term goal, if you think it is high, then you should focus on the short term problem (i.e. at least try to reduce the "interest rate"). I believe there is much evidence that the average email user believes that the "cost of spam" is high enough that the value of immediate solutions outweighs the value of even a "perfect" system in the future. Yes, it would be wonderful to solve the problem permanently. However, it would be more "useful" or "valuable" to limit it in the short term. bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Fenley Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 12:53 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?) This is in response to the entire thread, not any particular message. One major problem I see with Titan Key is that it relies on SMTP. If at some point SMTP is superceded by another protocol this type of system will no longer be useful (Perhaps the idea would be useful, but not the actual implementation. This implies the broader question: Should the ASRG support methods that rely on the SMTP protocol to work? Many have pointed to the SMTP protocol as a source of problems, and I personally believe the chances of SMTP being the standard email transfer method in 20-50 years are slim. I see any solution that cannot stand on it's own, independent of protocol, as a temporary bandaid on the larger problem (unless that protocol is perfect and will never ever be changed for all of time). Any support for an old protocol simply extends it's life, and SMTP is showing it's age. Also, changing how SMTP is handled to do extra checks can make MTAs more vulnerable to resource consuming Denial of Service attacks because every mail message received requires more resources in the receiver than the sender. I see the solution to this as a decision about whether or not ASRG should invest it's time and effort in a protocol that is old, and subject to abuse. If the answer is no, then i believe much of the constant bickering over specific details in SMTP can be avoided. Solutions discussed here might be more forward looking, and less reliant on squeezing as much as possible from what we have. I have often theorized that people can be divided into a spectrum by how much effort is put into making money, and how much is put into saving money. People at the extreme ends of the spectrum use almost all of their energy on one or the other. There are people who almost live on coupons, and free deals, and there are people who are so focused on making the money that even taking the time to go shopping would be a waste. It is the people in the middle who seem to struggle the most with the balance. They are not as efficient at either one, so their less effective saving of less money combine to cause money problems. I believe the way to go is the production of resources, rather than the saving of resources. In this group I believe we should not scrape the bowl to find every last crumb of good in what we have now... Enough people are doing that. I believe that we, as a Research group, should be the most forward looking group that we can be. John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 15:11:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28977 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51JBU223112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:11:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51JBUB23109 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:11:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28925; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYD5-0004MQ-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:09:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYD5-0004MN-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:09:39 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51JAEB23082; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:10:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51J9FB23038 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:09:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28742 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYAv-0004Lx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:07:25 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYAv-0004Lu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:07:25 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AMA62152; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-222-194.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.222.194]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AHN14828; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , "'John Fenley'" , Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Message-ID: <001901c32871$506026c0$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <001801c3286e$3d7b9a10$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h51J9FB23039 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:09:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In my previous note, which suggested an objective economic analysis as the basis for deciding between a short or long term focus, I should have noted that it appears that the "cost of spam" is increasing at a compound rate. Some suggest that this rate is equal to as much as 50% per year. Given compound growth in the "cost of spam", the present-value of any future solution is drastically reduced as the time to implement and deploy that solution increases. Similarly, the future-value of any short-term reduction in the cost-of-spam is drastically increased as the time to implement the short-term reduction is reduced relative to the time-to-implement the long-term ideal solution. I suggest that an economic analysis of spam argues clearly and unambiguously for the greater value of even the smallest short-term reductions in spam rather than more perfect solutions that may be possible in the long-term. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 15:35:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29930 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51JZTO23881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:35:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51JZTB23878 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:35:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29910; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYaN-0004X3-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:33:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYaN-0004X0-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:33:43 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51JYLB23856; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:34:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51JXQB23835 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:33:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29870 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYYO-0004WQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:31:40 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYYN-0004WM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:31:39 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:33:31 -0700 At 10:52 AM 6/1/03 -0600, John Fenley wrote: ... >This implies the broader question: Should the ASRG support methods that rely >on the SMTP protocol to work? Many have pointed to the SMTP protocol as a >source of problems, and I personally believe the chances of SMTP being the >standard email transfer method in 20-50 years are slim. >I see any solution that cannot stand on it's own, independent of protocol, >as a temporary bandaid on the larger problem (unless that protocol is >perfect and will never ever be changed for all of time). Any support for an >old protocol simply extends it's life, and SMTP is showing it's age. > I'm a little unclear on what you are asking. Should the ASRG support methods that work? Yes, it should. Should the ASRG support methods that work, and don't require SMTP? Yes, it should. Should the ASRG support methods that work, but require SMTP? Yes, it should do that too. Should the ASRG require that methods support SMTP? Unclear. I think all these questions are moot however, until we have more than one solution. So far I haven't seen even one method that I consider a solution, much less two. I think the answer to "Should the ASRG abandon SMTP in favor of a protocol that eliminates spam?" is going to be "First produce the protocol and some solid evidence that eliminates spam, and then we'll talk about it." Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 15:44:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00400 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51JiEr25107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:44:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51JiEB25104 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:44:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00388; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYiq-0004dq-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:42:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYiq-0004dm-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:42:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51Jh4B25078; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:43:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51Jg7B25022 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:42:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00356 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYgn-0004d2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:40:21 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MYgn-0004cz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:40:21 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2409395; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:42:02 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "John Fenley" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?) Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:41:57 -0400 At 10:52 AM -0600 6/1/03, John Fenley wrote: >This implies the broader question: Should the ASRG support methods >that rely on the SMTP protocol to work? Many have pointed to the >SMTP protocol as a source of problems, and I personally believe the >chances of SMTP being the standard email transfer method in 20-50 >years are slim. Reliance on SMTP is fine. Any new protocols will presumably attempt to deal with the problem from the ground up, rather than by patching. The chances that they'll have any need or desire for whatever systems we propose are slim. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 18:09:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04198 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51M8xi02009 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:08:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51M8xB02006 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:08:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04162; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mays-0005XQ-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:07:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mays-0005XM-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:07:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51M3hB00927; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:03:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51LxVB00755 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:59:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03234 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mapi-0005Py-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:57:42 -0400 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Maph-0005Pt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:57:42 -0400 Received: from sodom (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-1) with BSMTP id h51LxHVb011623; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:59:17 +0200 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by sodom.home.danisch.de (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-1) id h51LvTkH024012; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:29 +0200 From: Hadmut Danisch To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030601215729.GA23956@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Asrg] RMX: New draft and implementation Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:29 +0200 Hi, I will submit a new version of the RMX draft within the next few days. The draft is already available at http://www.danisch.de/work/security/antispam.html A first implementation (bind9, client library, sendmail milter) is available at http://www.danisch.de/software/rmx/ Please read the notices. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 18:28:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05307 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h51MSYs02542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:28:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51MSYB02539 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:28:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05303; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MbHp-0005f9-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:26:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MbHo-0005f6-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:26:44 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51MO8B02464; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:24:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h51MLjB02395 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:21:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05059 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MbBE-0005c2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:19:56 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com ([204.127.198.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MbBD-0005bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 18:19:55 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <200306012221070510025re9e>; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:21:07 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <16087.55044.654205.511223@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <570B443A-947F-11D7-80B0-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:21:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 18:11 US/Eastern, Barry Shein wrote: > I'll answer such inquiries, a quick check on google would probably > confirm I've answered many thousand such queries, but I think if I > were then confronted with a C/R requiring me to go web site etc I'd > say "good luck buddy!" > > Most of my point really was the web addr which can often mean firing > up a browser etc. If it were just a matter of responding in e-mail I'd > be more inclined to respond. Let me understand how this TitanKey system is supposed to work... 1. I send mail to Joe Smith. 2. I get a bounce message saying that there's no Joe Smith account, and that my e-mail wasn't delivered. I delete it immediately, of course. 3. I get an e-mail claiming to be from Joe Smith, saying that I need to go read a web page to get permission to send him e-mail. The web URL presumably has some information encoded in it. 4. I remember that Joe Smith was actually someone I tried to e-mail, and I don't bin the challenge immediately. 5. I go visit the web page. It seems to me that the assumptions in steps 3 & 5 are a major problem, because users are well aware that (a) clicking on encoded URLs is one of the tricks spammers use to verify your e-mail address, resulting in your getting more spam; and (b) that spammers and worms often use the e-mail addresses of your friends in the From: field to try and persuade you to read and respond to their spam. As far as step 4 goes, I'll be generous and assume I'm the only person who doesn't remember the e-mail addresses of everyone he sends mail to. There's also the question of whether TitanKey saves a copy of all the e-mail it sends 550 responses to. If it does, then you're basically using up as much disk space and bandwidth as just delivering the spam. If it doesn't, then you're expecting the sender to go find a copy of the e-mail he tried to send--assuming he kept a copy--and send it again. I find it very hard to believe anyone would really jump through a hoop *that* high. Now, I may be wrong, so what if users *are* prepared to go visit a web site in response to a challenge from a C/R system? In that case, I give it about a week before we start seeing spam that's a verbatim copy of the TitanKey C/R text, followed by a URL which redirects to a porn site. Users learn to associate C/R system challenges with porn spam, or (even worse) their Bayesian spam filter recognizes the cloaked URL and learns to filter out challenges automatically. In fact, a similar problem applies to any other C/R system--inevitably we'll see spammers sending fake C/R challenges as a means of obtaining confirmed e-mail addresses. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 20:32:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07106 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h520Vgc09694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:31:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h520VgB09691 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:31:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07100; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MdD0-00068b-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:29:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MdD0-00068Y-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:29:54 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h520QYB09472; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:26:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h520NJB09386 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:23:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06984 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Md4t-000678-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:21:32 -0400 Received: from mail12.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.212] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Md4t-000674-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:21:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 31696 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2003 00:23:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail12.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Jun 2003 00:23:15 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: mathew , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <570B443A-947F-11D7-80B0-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <570B443A-947F-11D7-80B0-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306012025.40126.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:25:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mathew wrote: > Let me understand how this TitanKey system is supposed to work... [snip] > 4. I remember that Joe Smith was actually someone I tried to e-mail, > and I don't bin the challenge immediately. This last bit might be helped by quoting the (normally visible) headers. (yoohoo, mr. titankey, i hope you're listening....) -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 1 22:12:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09383 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h522C8j16805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h522C8B16802 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09334; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MemB-0006ik-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:10:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MemA-0006ih-00; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:10:18 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5227OB16368; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:07:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52246B15643 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:04:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09200 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MeeP-0006gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:02:17 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MeeO-0006gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:02:16 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5224064009074 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:04:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306020204.h5224064009074@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) References: <570B443A-947F-11D7-80B0-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:04:00 -0600 (MDT) > From: mathew > ... > As far as step 4 goes, I'll be generous and assume I'm the only person > who doesn't remember the e-mail addresses of everyone he sends mail to. I also forget, even when the message was sent to a single person. Then there are the cases when I'm doing a "reply-all" to a message from a stranger who sent copies to half a dozen colleagues. This problem applies to all of the C/R systems I've seen described, except those that assume that software on 100,000,000 desktops is upgraded first. > ... > Now, I may be wrong, so what if users *are* prepared to go visit a web > site in response to a challenge from a C/R system? In that case, I give > it about a week before we start seeing spam that's a verbatim copy of > the TitanKey C/R text, followed by a URL which redirects to a porn > site. Users learn to associate C/R system challenges with porn spam, or This also applies to all C/R systems that don't assume both sender and receiver are running new, as yet unspecifed (not to mention not designed or written) software. > (even worse) their Bayesian spam filter recognizes the cloaked URL and > learns to filter out challenges automatically. Why is that worse? Many people will think expect their Bayesian or other filters such as SpamAssassin to recognize the "please click or respond" boilerplate of a challenge as likely junk. C/R advocates will tell me I'm being nasty and negative, but others should consider the numbers. Assume a C/R system becomes popular. Spammers will then imitate C/R "click or respond" boilerplate just as they now blather about imaginary laws. Some spammers will honestly think that sending an "click or respond" challenge is a legitimate "confirmed opt-out subscription" mechanism and have software that does something with responses. As soon as you have reponded to the challenges of your regulare correspondents (or whitelisted them), most of the challenge boilerplate you'll receive will be spam. If you don't have any ego or money invested in the C/R system, what will you do? Why won't you will tune your filters to reject mail that looks like challenges even if that wrecks the C/R system for you? Some C/R advovates will tell me I'm stupid besides negative and that challenges will be easily distinguished from the fakes by some means. I'll respond that if that were possible, we could apply the same means to ordinary mail and skip the whole challenge/response hassle. > In fact, a similar problem applies to any other C/R system--inevitably > we'll see spammers sending fake C/R challenges as a means of obtaining > confirmed e-mail addresses. Let's not over generalize. Just as not all spammers (do not) honor 550-unknown-user SMTP status and the question whether most do or not is meaningless, some spammers won't be using C/R fakery to clean their lists but will simply be capturing "eyeballs." The fundamental problem with C/R systems is the same as with most propose spam solutions. It is their advocates they assume that mail recipients, spammers, and legimate senders are just like the people advocating the proposal. There is an oddly consistent refusal of advocates to play devil's advocate against their own proposals. People assume that everyone, spammers as well as the general public, will go against individual self-interest to make the proposal work. No one seems to have ever heard of Murphy or know that Murphy was an optimist, because the other guys are actively looking for ways to bend the system. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 00:07:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11058 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5246gl23646 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:06:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5246gB23643 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:06:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11054; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MgZ5-00076b-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:04:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MgZ4-00076Y-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:04:54 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5240TB23456; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:00:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h523vmB23359 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10970 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MgQT-00075v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:56:01 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MgQS-00075s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:56:00 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h523viCJ004156; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:44 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26076; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16090.52024.175436.580919@world.std.com> To: "John Fenley" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?) In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 1, 2003 at 10:52 pontifier@hotmail.com (John Fenley) wrote: > This is in response to the entire thread, not any particular message. > One major problem I see with Titan Key is that it relies on SMTP. If at some > point SMTP is superceded by another protocol this type of system will no > longer be useful (Perhaps the idea would be useful, but not the actual > implementation. This is the contrapositive of the "it would take too long for a significant number of end-users/servers to adopt XYZ". I think it's safe to say that SMTP will be in use for a long, long time, particularly since there's absolutely nothing at this time even on the horizon to replace it. And my educated guess is that any evolution of SMTP will be incremental and backwards compatible. Since SMTP is basically just * it's hard to see what brilliant insight would obsolete it. The VERB part has already been co-opted to say from here on we're doing a major extension of the protocol if it's ok with you (i.e., EHLO). Put another way, to paraphrase the old joke about Fortran, I don't know what people will be using to deliver email 20 years from now, but they'll probably call it SMTP (and it'll probably be mostly backwards compatible.) But...I COULD BE WRONG. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 00:30:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11451 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h524UWQ25531 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:30:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h524UWB25528 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:30:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11428; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mgw8-0007Bq-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:28:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mgw8-0007Bn-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:28:44 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h524QAB25287; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:26:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h524N8B25180 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:23:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11214 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mgoy-00078d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:21:20 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mgox-00078a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:21:19 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h524N3a8020183; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:23:03 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14123; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:23:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16090.53542.652328.165398@world.std.com> To: Cc: "'John Fenley'" , Subject: Re: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) In-Reply-To: <001801c3286e$3d7b9a10$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> References: <001801c3286e$3d7b9a10$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:23:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On the other hand, spam has been around for almost 10 years, and has certainly been a major concern at public sites since at least 1997, almost seven years ago. So, although a quick solution of some magnitude is almost mandatory just to stop something major kicking over the entire chessboard (death of the net and all that), let's not completely rule out so-called long-term, slow adoption approaches with 5-10 year horizons or even longer. For example, if someone came up with a really clever anti-spam strategy which 25% of the net adopted in 2 years and 50% in 5 years and perhaps 98% in 10 years that should be seriously considered w/o the usual "it'd take 5-10 years for most of the net to adopt something like that!" It really depends on how much good it might do along the acceptance curve. Some approaches won't do much good until most everyone accepts them, others might do a lot of good if just some early adopters adopt them such as major ISPs. The shape of that curve can be as important as its final outcome. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 02:12:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24379 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h526CLZ09962 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:12:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h526CKB09956 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:12:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24316; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MiWc-0007d7-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:10:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MiWb-0007d4-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:10:29 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h526AdB05883; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:10:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5267UB04167 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:07:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20595 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MiRw-0007cJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:05:40 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MiRv-0007cG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:05:39 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:07:32 -0700 At 06:21 PM 6/1/03 -0400, mathew wrote: [edited] > >Now, I may be wrong, so what if users *are* prepared to go visit a web >site in response to a challenge from a C/R system? In that case, I give >it about a week before we start seeing spam that's a verbatim copy of >the TitanKey C/R text, followed by a URL which redirects to a porn >site. Users learn to associate C/R system challenges with porn spam, or >(even worse) their Bayesian spam filter recognizes the cloaked URL and >learns to filter out challenges automatically. > >In fact, a similar problem applies to any other C/R system--inevitably >we'll see spammers sending fake C/R challenges as a means of obtaining >confirmed e-mail addresses. > It's probably true of most systems in use, but any? Never use absolutes, they will always get you in to trouble. Suppose that all challenges included the Message-Id: of the quarantined message in it's In-Reply-To: and/or References: header. (like all DSNs should - grrr) Then as long as mail clients can recognize message-ids they've created, it's a simple matter to accept any you've generated, and discard any that you haven't. (Handy for those forged return address bounces too.) If you're worried that spammers will start forging plausible ids for their In-Reply-To: headers, or that's too hard for your computer to remember a few thousand IDs, here's a simple way to create them. id = "UTC.N@" . md5sum(UTC, N, domain, secret); where N doesn't repeat in one second intervals (PID is traditional), and secret is several high quality random bits (say, 16 bytes worth). That still leaves replay attacks using IDs scraped from mailing lists within the expiry date. With a few tiny changes to the way mailing lists work, it would actually be possible to close that hole too, but I think that's a bit excessive for something that is only a remote possibility. IMO the killer problem with C/R is the "automated notice of something important" message. Frequently, those don't even have a valid return address, much less a human that will click on your web site. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 03:49:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26997 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h527moT19614 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:48:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h527moB19611 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:48:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26993; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mk23-0000jB-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:47:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mk22-0000j8-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:47:02 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h527lNB19562; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:47:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h527ilB19455 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:44:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26939 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 03:44:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mjy8-0000iU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:43:00 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mjy7-0000iL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:42:59 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A0A85C0F00E6; Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:45:44 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 07:48:46 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Thread-Index: AcMnmEELmwS9WY92Tr2viG1nc7lC4ABQkCaA From: "Peter Kay" To: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h527ioB19456 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:44:15 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit There have been several requests for this, so, no problem. We've got several accounts that get loads of spam. We'll post out some CSVs of the bounce data and you can all analyze it yourself. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us] > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 7:16 AM > To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors > "improves" C/R utility?) > > Peter Kay wrote: > > I'll wait to see the responses and if positive, > > I'll post off our Web site. > If you're willing to post the data, I can't imagine why you > would wait. This is a *research* group. *Any* real data is going to be > welcomed by any rational participant -- especially if that data will, as > you suggest: "prove insightful". If you've got data, please post it! > > bob wyman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Peter Kay > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:06 PM > To: Barry Shein; Scott Nelson > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard > errors "improves" C/R utility?) > > > Good news: > > We've been "dogfooding" The Titan Key since around Jan of this year. If > the group is interested, we'd be happy to provide database logs of spam > "attacks" against email addresses that return a 550. I can't guarantee > all the data is "there" but it will at least prove insightful. > > I'll wait to see the responses and if positive, I'll post off our Web > site. > > Peter Kay > President > TitanKey Software > direct: 808-377-9221. Web: www.titankey.com > The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 09:24:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06225 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52DO9013071 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52DO9B13068 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06189; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MpGV-0002uK-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 09:22:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MpGV-0002uH-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 09:22:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52DMXB12969; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:22:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52DLjB12892 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:21:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06091 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MpEB-0002sw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 09:19:55 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MpEA-0002st-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 09:19:54 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h52DLZVA019603 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 07:21:35 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306021321.h52DLZVA019603@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 07:21:35 -0600 (MDT) > From: Scott Nelson > ... > Never use absolutes, they will always get you in to trouble. Many absolutes, including that one, can get you into trouble. > Suppose that all challenges included the Message-Id: of the > quarantined message in it's In-Reply-To: and/or References: header. > (like all DSNs should - grrr) > > Then as long as mail clients can recognize message-ids they've created, > it's a simple matter to accept any you've generated, and discard any > that you haven't. (Handy for those forged return address bounces too.) So few users know what a message-ID is, and so few of those who do know have the least clue about the message-IDs of their last dozen sent mail messages that it is safe to make the absolute statement that no users could ever distinguish valid from bogus spammer challenges with message-IDs. > If you're worried that spammers will start forging plausible ids > for their In-Reply-To: headers, or that's too hard for your computer > to remember a few thousand IDs, here's a simple way to create them. > id = "UTC.N@" . md5sum(UTC, N, domain, secret); > ... How many people are going to manually check the last few days of mail they've sent looking for the message-ID of a new challenge? Obviously no one, including practically all C/R advocates will bother. If any users were willing and able to do that, there would not be a continuous flood of questions from people asking how their computers managed to send spam when they weren't looking when they get a forged bounce. Even if you modify everyone's MUA to record the Message-IDs of outgoing mail (no, not all MUAs do that, not even when configured to record outgoing mail), the absolute statement that no one would manually check Message-IDs is still more than "5-nines" true. You would have to modify MUAs to automagically check "sent folders." This sub-thread started with the observation that many of us can't remember to whom we sent mail, and you want us to remember Message-IDs? If manual (or automatic) checking of Message-IDs could work, then so would manual (or automatic) checking of "sent folders" for recipients (except for .forward files, aliases, etc.). > IMO the killer problem with C/R is the "automated notice of > something important" message. Frequently, those don't even have > a valid return address, much less a human that will click > on your web site. That's also a killer. C/R systems depend on and will in practice devolve into whitelisting systems. It would be good to finish the C/R protocols, IDs, or whatever, and move on to the whitelisting mechanisms that C/R systems require. That's where most of the utility will lie. You'll need protocols or some sort of mechanical support to exchange self-signed certs, PGP keys, or whatever to foil spammer attacks on the whitelisting system. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 11:17:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11621 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52FHSA23680 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:17:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52FHSB23677 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:17:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11567; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mr2D-0003u8-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:15:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mr2C-0003u5-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:15:40 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52FEgB23443; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:14:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52F9jB23095 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:09:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11074 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mquf-0003kz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:07:53 -0400 Received: from vantage.xciv.org ([195.82.119.76] helo=mailhost.xciv.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mque-0003kv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:07:52 -0400 Received: from meta (helo=localhost) by mailhost.xciv.org with local-esmtp id 19MqwG-0005Ts-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:09:32 +0100 From: mathew X-X-Sender: meta@vantage.xciv.org To: Scott Nelson cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:09:32 +0100 (BST) On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Scott Nelson wrote: > Suppose that all challenges included the Message-Id: of the > quarantined message in it's In-Reply-To: and/or References: header. > (like all DSNs should - grrr) > > Then as long as mail clients can recognize message-ids they've created, > it's a simple matter to accept any you've generated, and discard any > that you haven't. (Handy for those forged return address bounces too.) There are millions of e-mail clients that don't even generate Message-IDs and In-Reply-To: headers, let alone record the ones on sent mail. If I name Lotus Notes and Eudora as examples, that's probably a two-digit percentage of all e-mail for starters (Notes being the biggest-selling enterprise e-mail system, and Eudora being second in popularity to Outlook on the desktop). Both have been that way for decades. If C/R won't work unless the vast majority of people upgrade their e-mail client, then I don't see much hope for it. As an aside... SpamAssassin with Bayesian filtering is so good that it's weeks since I last had a false positive, and I've had only a handful of spams in the same period, all for products that apparently hadn't been spamvertised before. mathew -- Journal and other stuff at _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 11:55:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13079 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52Fsg526984 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:54:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52FsgB26981 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:54:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13061; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MrcE-0004Gv-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:52:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MrcE-0004Gs-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:52:54 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52FrFB26848; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:53:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52FqJB26726 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:52:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12860 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MrZv-0004Cx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:50:31 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MrZv-0004Cu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:50:31 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OWM65083; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-222-194.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.222.194]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AHO74000; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Barry Shein'" Cc: "'John Fenley'" , Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Message-ID: <003001c3291e$f9d74be0$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <16090.53542.652328.165398@world.std.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h52FqJB26727 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:52:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Barry Shein wrote: > The shape of that curve can be as important as its final outcome. Yes. That is precisely the point that I was making by suggesting that one use an economic analysis in comparing the utility of short-term vs long-term solutions. In many cases a "perfect" solution/outcome far in the future will be "less valuable" than a partial solution in the more near-term. > Some approaches won't do much good until most everyone > accepts them, others might do a lot of good if just some > early adopters adopt them such as major ISPs. And some approaches produce immediate value whenever a single individual adopts them. For instance, filtering systems, whitelists, and "single-use addreses" like those of TMDA, provide immediate and substantial short-term benefits. For those users, the present value of using such solutions if massively greater than the present value of any "perfect" solution that might arrive, or begin to arrive, several years in the future. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 12:34:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14391 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:34:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52GXv230570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:33:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GXuB30567 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:33:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14373; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsEC-0004ZZ-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:32:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsEB-0004ZW-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:32:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GVMB30436; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:31:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GUiB30385 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:30:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14275 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsB5-0004Xy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:28:55 -0400 Received: from cs.ida.org ([129.246.101.11]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsB5-0004Xs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:28:55 -0400 Received: from ida.org (aphrodite.csed.ida.org [129.246.80.142]) by cs.ida.org (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.6) with ESMTP id h52GU2P16327; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EDB7B59.3080004@ida.org> From: David Wheeler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020518 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: research@solidmatrix.com, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:29:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vern Paxson - Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks patent, I'm sure others here can add a few:

Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes there!" challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of previous approaches that have been used for millenia.

In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM described a challenge-response system in which the sender would be asked to process a particular solution before the receiver would accept the email [Dwork 1992]. This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92.

On May 26, 1996, Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) posted how to implement a challenge-response system using procmail. This was publicly posted to the newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.misc" as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from exd48265@interramp.com", message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email if it came from certain sources or included a special password in the "Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the original sender. This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a response to another query in the newsgroup. Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented challenge-response systems far earlier as well. Hope that helps, and thank you. --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 12:56:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15061 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52GuNW32529 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GuNB32526 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15039; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsZu-0004iN-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:54:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsZu-0004iK-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:54:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52Gt9B32397; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:55:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GnkB32162 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:49:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14821 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsTV-0004fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:47:57 -0400 Received: from 000-250-491.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.218.48] helo=68.27.218.48 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsTR-0004fI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:47:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602124744.00ba0e70@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: David Wheeler , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:47:45 -0400 David, I updated the web page (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include prior art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior art, please post to the list. Yakov At 12:29 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote: >Vern Paxson - >Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also >please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), >so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating >prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very >useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. >Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. > >Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks patent, >I'm sure others here can add a few: > >

>Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes there!" >challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. >Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of >previous approaches that have been used for millenia. >

>In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM >described a challenge-response system in which the sender >would be asked to process a particular solution before >the receiver would accept the email > >[Dwork 1992]. >This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92. >

>On May 26, 1996, >href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4o8cqk%248ah%40dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at&output=gplain"> >Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) >posted how to implement a challenge-response system using procmail. >This was publicly posted to the newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.misc" >as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from exd48265@interramp.com", >message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. >This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email >if it came from certain sources or included a special password in the >"Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the original >sender. >This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a response >to another query in the newsgroup. >Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented challenge-response >systems far earlier as well. > > >Hope that helps, and thank you. > > >--- David A. Wheeler > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 12:57:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15088 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52Guan32557 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GuaB32554 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15056; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Msa7-0004iU-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:54:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Msa7-0004iR-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:54:47 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GtBB32414; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:55:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52GrCB32283 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:53:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14915 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsWp-0004gW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:51:23 -0400 Received: from 000-250-491.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.218.48] helo=68.27.218.48 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MsWn-0004gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:51:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602125002.00bb8e78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich In-Reply-To: <007501c3261f$9feac230$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> References: <20030529195238.GA14209@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Xircom Patent (was TitanKey etc.) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:52:51 -0400 Can someone provide more information on the following patent (USPTO 6,356,935)? Feel free to use the template from http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html and post your responses to the list. [START TEMPLATE] 1. IP Owner Information. Include legal name and contact information 2. Type of IP: copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, etc 3. IP Information: Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s), Date(s) granted or applied for, Whether this disclosure relates to an unpublished pending patent application. 4. References: Include links, ASRG list postings, Internet drafts, etc. 5. Licensing Declaration. The IP Holder states that its position with respect to licensing any IP claims disclosed above that would be necessary to implement the technology required by an IETF Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Standard (or other IETF document) is as follows (select one option only): ___ No License Required for Implementers ___ Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers ___ Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee ___ Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a willingness to license in some form to all implementers; otherwise, "Unwilling to License to All Implementers" must be selected) ___ Unwilling to License to All Implementers 6. Possible Prior Art: Description and links to possible prior art 7. Notes: Additional Notes [END TEMPLATE] At 04:19 PM 5/29/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >[..] > These "Virtual Private Email Addresses" appear to be very much >the same method which I've discussed in a few earlier notes, is used in >TDMA, or is claimed in the Xircom patent that Intel now owns. (see: >USPTO 6,356,935). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 13:48:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16750 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52Hm3B04803 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:48:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52Hm3B04800 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:48:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16729; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtNs-000537-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:46:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtNs-000534-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:46:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52HkMB04611; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:46:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52HiqB04506 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:44:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16615 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtKn-00051b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:43:01 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtKm-00051Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:43:00 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:44:49 -0700 At 07:21 AM 6/2/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Scott Nelson > >> ... >> Never use absolutes, they will always get you in to trouble. > >Many absolutes, including that one, can get you into trouble. > >> Suppose that all challenges included the Message-Id: of the >> quarantined message in it's In-Reply-To: and/or References: header. >> (like all DSNs should - grrr) >> >> Then as long as mail clients can recognize message-ids they've created, >> it's a simple matter to accept any you've generated, and discard any >> that you haven't. (Handy for those forged return address bounces too.) > >So few users know what a message-ID is, and so few of those who do >know have the least clue about the message-IDs of their last dozen >sent mail messages that it is safe to make the absolute statement that >no users could ever distinguish valid from bogus spammer challenges >with message-IDs. > /I/ could, but then, I've studied the problem intently, and my messages-ids are quite a bit different from the "standard" ones. More importantly, my mail client can do it. Anyone mail client that used a similar method could do it too. > >> If you're worried that spammers will start forging plausible ids >> for their In-Reply-To: headers, or that's too hard for your computer >> to remember a few thousand IDs, here's a simple way to create them. >> id = "UTC.N@" . md5sum(UTC, N, domain, secret); >> ... > >How many people are going to manually check the last few days of mail >they've sent looking for the message-ID of a new challenge? Obviously >no one, including practically all C/R advocates will bother. If any >users were willing and able to do that, there would not be a continuous >flood of questions from people asking how their computers managed to >send spam when they weren't looking when they get a forged bounce. > >Even if you modify everyone's MUA to record the Message-IDs of outgoing >mail (no, not all MUAs do that, not even when configured to record >outgoing mail), the absolute statement that no one would manually >check Message-IDs is still more than "5-nines" true. You would have >to modify MUAs to automagically check "sent folders." > If your mail client creates them in a way that can be checked, then it doesn't have to remember anything except the rule for generating them. I described a way to do it. I've been testing a similar method for a while now, without any problems. If anyone is working on a something that generates message-ids, and is having trouble understanding or implementing the idea, I'd be glad to help them. >This sub-thread started with the observation that many of us can't >remember to whom we sent mail, and you want us to remember Message-IDs? >If manual (or automatic) checking of Message-IDs could work, then so >would manual (or automatic) checking of "sent folders" for recipients >(except for .forward files, aliases, etc.). > I /want/ MUAs to be able to identify their own IDs, yes. I pointed out a way that could happen that involves changing MUAs. I don't expect that change to occur overnight, or achieve universal acceptance. Examine the pieces of what I'm talking about, and consider the cost vs. benefits. DSNs (including challenges) need to include an "in-reply-to:" header. For most this is a change, but not a difficult change to implement - it doesn't require esoteric knowledge, or involve a third party. There is a tiny benefit, in that the tiny percentage of people who actually pay attention to message-ids are less confused. As more people do it, the benefit increases. The message-ids are compatible with the legacy system. The major cost is the cost associated with any change. I wouldn't expect anyone to roll out a new version just for this, but I hope that many will add it in and roll it out with their next revision. MUAs need to generate messages-ids that they can recognize. For most this is a change, but not a difficult change to implement - it doesn't require esoteric knowledge, or involve a third party. There is a tiny benefit, in that the tiny percentage of people who actually include the id in DSNs can be dealt with better. As more people do it, the benefit increases. An additional benefit is that stupid address scrapers wouldn't mistake a message-id like <20030602T151721@07107eb572829bb7302d6f05ca873309> for an address, unlike <1234.5678@example.com>. (This is not as big a problem as it used to be, scrapers are getting smarter.) The major cost is the cost associated with any change. I wouldn't expect anyone to roll out a new version just for this, but I hope that many will add it in and roll it out with their next revision. Identifying your own message-ids: For most this is a change, but not a difficult change to implement - it doesn't require esoteric knowledge, or involve a third party. There is a tiny benefit, in that the tiny percentage of people who actually include the id in DSNs can be dealt with better. As more people do it, the benefit increases. An additional benefit is that DSNs which do include a "in-reply-to:" header that can be determined not to have been generated by the client can be discarded. I wouldn't expect anyone to roll this out until after a few percent have actually started including message-ids in their DSNs/challenges. If the Earthlink challenge system does it, or qmail, or sendmail, then that might be enough right there. The costs though small, are much larger then the previous two, since this involves a change to the user interface (identifying good/bad DSNs isn't much use unless you can communicate that to the end user) The benefits are larger though, since this has the potential to actually block some spam. All these things are changes, and changes take time. But the costs are small, and the potential benefits large. Most spam isn't going to look like a challenge until challenges are wide spread. Either few have implemented the changes, in which case counterfeit challenges have little value, or many have implemented them, in which case counterfeit challenges very hard to manufacture. > >> IMO the killer problem with C/R is the "automated notice of >> something important" message. Frequently, those don't even have >> a valid return address, much less a human that will click >> on your web site. > >That's also a killer. > >C/R systems depend on and will in practice devolve into whitelisting >systems. It would be good to finish the C/R protocols, IDs, or whatever, >and move on to the whitelisting mechanisms that C/R systems require. >That's where most of the utility will lie. You'll need protocols or >some sort of mechanical support to exchange self-signed certs, PGP keys, >or whatever to foil spammer attacks on the whitelisting system. > Even with a crypto-secure mail system, I can't see any way to prevent someone on whom you're dependant from abusing that and spamming through the whitelisted channel. My best answer so far is "If spam only came from the companies you dealt with, that's better than the current situation.". IMO the friends list is the weakest link, and it's also the most difficult to fix. If forgery was the /only/ way to send spam, then almost all spam would be forged. I can see ways to prevent forgery, but they all involve esoteric knowledge, trusted third parties, and require large scale acceptance before any real benefit is realized. Most people would balk at rejecting a sender that isn't certifiable, even if 90% of the senders are. Even Microsoft would have trouble achieving 90% penetration. OTH, it might be possible to at least get "automated notice of something important" messages to be digitally signed, sent from trusted IPs or whatever whitelist mechanism becomes a standard (assuming of course that there ever is a standard). Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 13:54:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17015 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52Hru805227 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:53:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52HruB05223 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:53:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16980; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtTa-000575-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:52:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtTZ-000572-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:52:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52HqJB05065; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:52:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52HnoB04910 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:49:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16837 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtPb-000545-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:47:59 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MtPb-000542-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:47:59 -0400 Message-Id: To: Yakov Shafranovich , David Wheeler , asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:49:53 -0700 At 12:47 PM 6/2/03 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >David, > >I updated the web page >(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include prior >art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior art, >please post to the list. > >Yakov > http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/prior_art.html This has already been discussed, so I won't belabor it on the list. If you want more, email me privately. My favorite piece is still http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 14:33:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18339 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52IXF308369 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:33:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52IXFB08366 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:33:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18331; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mu5c-0005Pg-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:31:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mu5b-0005Pd-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:31:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52IVDB08282; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52IV0B08213 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:31:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18249 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mu3Q-0005On-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:29:08 -0400 Received: from 000-250-491.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.218.48] helo=68.27.218.48 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mu3O-0005Oj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:29:07 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602143025.00ba0e70@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Scott Nelson , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:30:26 -0400 At 10:49 AM 6/2/2003 -0700, Scott Nelson wrote: >At 12:47 PM 6/2/03 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >David, > > > >I updated the web page > >(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include prior > >art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior art, > >please post to the list. > > > >Yakov > > > >http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/prior_art.html > >This has already been discussed, so I won't belabor it on the list. >If you want more, email me privately. > >My favorite piece is still >http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca > > >Scott Nelson I added the link to your page, to the patent list I am maintaining. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 14:57:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18946 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52Iugs10400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:56:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52IugB10397 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:56:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18941; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuSI-0005WZ-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:54:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuSI-0005WW-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:54:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52ItHB10332; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:55:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52IqHB10172 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:52:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18819 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuO1-0005Ut-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:50:25 -0400 Received: from ms1.quadtelecom.com ([66.45.116.138] helo=ms3.quadtelecom.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuO0-0005Uq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:50:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 96653 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2003 18:52:09 -0000 Received: from anna1.quadtelecom.com (HELO quadtelecom.com) (192.168.1.28) by ms3.quadtelecom.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2003 18:52:09 -0000 Message-ID: <3EDB9CBD.207@quadtelecom.com> From: Harry Tabak Organization: Quad Telecom, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org CC: David Wheeler Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602124744.00ba0e70@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602124744.00ba0e70@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:51:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, Your own post, "[Asrg] News Article - MailBlocks, Patents and Prior Art", 19 May 2003, quotes an article about Mailblock and prior art claims by David F. Skoll and Brad Templeton. Perhaps these claims should be added to your collection prior art for the Mailblock pattents. Reference to Skoll's work: http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca and the thread "[Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent". Templeton's own page: http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html Harry Tabak Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > David, > > I updated the web page > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include > prior art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior > art, please post to the list. > > Yakov > > At 12:29 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote: > >> Vern Paxson - >> Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also >> please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), >> so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating >> prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very >> useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. >> Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. >> >> Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks patent, >> I'm sure others here can add a few: >> >>

>> Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes >> there!" challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. >> Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of >> previous approaches that have been used for millenia. >>

>> In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM >> described a challenge-response system in which the sender >> would be asked to process a particular solution before >> the receiver would accept the email >> >> [Dwork 1992]. >> This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92. >>

>> On May 26, 1996, >> > href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4o8cqk%248ah%40dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at&output=gplain"> >> >> Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) >> posted how to implement a challenge-response system using procmail. >> This was publicly posted to the newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.misc" >> as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from exd48265@interramp.com", >> message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. >> This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email >> if it came from certain sources or included a special password in the >> "Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the >> original sender. >> This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a response >> to another query in the newsgroup. >> Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented challenge-response >> systems far earlier as well. >> >> >> Hope that helps, and thank you. >> >> >> --- David A. Wheeler >> > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 15:04:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19337 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52J4RE10848 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52J4RB10845 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19287; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:04:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuZn-0005Yz-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:02:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuZm-0005Yw-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:02:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52J34B10750; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:03:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52J2JB10712 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:02:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19084 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuXj-0005Xw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:00:27 -0400 Received: from 000-250-491.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.218.48] helo=68.27.218.48) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MuXe-0005Xm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:00:24 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602150059.00bb6bb8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Harry Tabak , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. In-Reply-To: <3EDB9CBD.207@quadtelecom.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030602124744.00ba0e70@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030602124744.00ba0e70@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:01:53 -0400 I am going to go through the mailing list archive and add everything in. Thanks, Yakov At 02:51 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, Harry Tabak wrote: >Yakov, >Your own post, "[Asrg] News Article - MailBlocks, Patents and Prior Art", >19 May 2003, quotes an article about Mailblock and prior art claims by >David F. Skoll and Brad Templeton. Perhaps these claims should be added >to your collection prior art for the Mailblock pattents. > >Reference to Skoll's work: >http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca >and the thread "[Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent". > >Templeton's own page: >http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > >Harry Tabak > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>David, >>I updated the web page >>(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include prior >>art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior art, >>please post to the list. >>Yakov >>At 12:29 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote: >> >>>Vern Paxson - >>>Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also >>>please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), >>>so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating >>>prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very >>>useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. >>>Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. >>> >>>Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks patent, >>>I'm sure others here can add a few: >>> >>>

>>>Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes >>>there!" challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. >>>Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of >>>previous approaches that have been used for millenia. >>>

>>>In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM >>>described a challenge-response system in which the sender >>>would be asked to process a particular solution before >>>the receiver would accept the email >>> >>>[Dwork 1992]. >>>This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92. >>>

>>>On May 26, 1996, >>>>>href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4o8cqk%248ah%40dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at&output=gplain"> >>> >>>Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) >>>posted how to implement a challenge-response system using procmail. >>>This was publicly posted to the newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.misc" >>>as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from exd48265@interramp.com", >>>message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. >>>This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email >>>if it came from certain sources or included a special password in the >>>"Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the original >>>sender. >>>This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a response >>>to another query in the newsgroup. >>>Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented challenge-response >>>systems far earlier as well. >>> >>> >>>Hope that helps, and thank you. >>> >>> >>>--- David A. Wheeler >>_______________________________________________ >>Asrg mailing list >>Asrg@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 15:48:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21381 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52JlkW14909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:47:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52JljB14905 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:47:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21364; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MvFl-0005nQ-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:45:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MvFl-0005nN-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:45:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52JkBB14826; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:46:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52JjYB14792 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:45:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21330 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MvDe-0005me-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:43:46 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MvDe-0005mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:43:46 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 5C067DE41; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:45:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] RMX: New draft and implementation Message-ID: <20030602194532.GA7024@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030601215729.GA23956@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030601215729.GA23956@danisch.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:45:32 -0400 On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:57:29PM +0200, Hadmut Danisch wrote: | | I will submit a new version of the RMX draft within the next | few days. The draft is already available at | | http://www.danisch.de/work/security/antispam.html Over the past few days I have reviewed both RMX and Fecyk's DMP. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. I believe a hybrid is possible: one that represents the best of both worlds. http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/dmp.mhtml#vs Constructive criticism welcome. cheers meng _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 16:24:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22651 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52KOPo17879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:24:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52KOPB17876 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:24:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22644; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MvpE-00067C-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:22:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MvpE-000679-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:22:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52KMZB17786; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:22:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52KL5B17700 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:21:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22560 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:21:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mvm0-00066Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:19:16 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Mvlz-00066N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:19:15 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h52KL15o010266 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:21:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306022021.h52KL15o010266@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:21:01 -0600 (MDT) > From: Scott Nelson > ... > actually pay attention to message-ids are less confused. As more > people do it, the benefit increases. The message-ids are compatible > with the legacy system. The major cost is the cost associated > with any change. I wouldn't expect anyone to roll out a new > version just for this, but I hope that many will add it in and > roll it out with their next revision. > ... > The major cost is the cost associated with any change. > I wouldn't expect anyone to roll out a new version just for this, > but I hope that many will add it in and roll it out > with their next revision. What is the reasonable basis for your hope? Certain large vendor(s) not only can't even get things like "out-of-office" messages right but insist that their broken wrong why is the right and ony way. Why would they generate your flavor of Message-ID, assuming it is all you say it is and more? Then there are the people who use qmail despite the fact that when qmail acts as an MUA (e.g. generates a DSN or when fronting for a mailing list), it often does not generate any Message-IDs, and these are exactly the early-adopters you would hope to use your new flavor. As you say, the benefits for generating your message-IDs start at zilch and with noticable costs (e.g. release cycle), and slowly improve over the years. I'm not saying it can't happen, but asking for a better reason than "it would be nice" and "maybe someday it will help somewhat." (I know that qmail often does not generate Message-IDs because detecting their absense is one of my better spam filters. Qmail systems are the only significant false positives for my mail and the most significant false positives for the 1,000,000's of mailboxes protected by the DCC.) > ... > All these things are changes, and changes take time. > But the costs are small, and the potential benefits large. I'm made bazillions of low cost eventually high profit suggestions in zillions of areas over the last 35 years. If even 10% of them had been adopted, we would be in heaven...or something. I've long since realized there are two kinds of changes, those that I can make personally or that can be made by people I know and can convince, and very long shots that are almost always wastes of time to even talk about except while "shooting the bull." Convincing people you don't know at addresses you can't even describe to do something like change their message-ID generating code for a possible reward in several years is one of the second kind. It could happen, but we better have a fall back defense against spam. > Most spam isn't going to look like a challenge until challenges > are wide spread. Yes, and C/R systems are unlikely to ever be widespread. I wish the C/R advocates would get on with specifying their protocol or whatever in an I-D and then RFC so that the world can move past that chimera. > ... > >C/R systems depend on and will in practice devolve into whitelisting > >systems. It would be good to finish the C/R protocols, IDs, or whatever, > >and move on to the whitelisting mechanisms that C/R systems require. > >That's where most of the utility will lie. You'll need protocols or > >some sort of mechanical support to exchange self-signed certs, PGP keys, > >or whatever to foil spammer attacks on the whitelisting system. > > Even with a crypto-secure mail system, > I can't see any way to prevent someone on whom you're dependant > from abusing that and spamming through the whitelisted channel. > My best answer so far is "If spam only came from the companies > you dealt with, that's better than the current situation.". On the contrary, junk mail from your correspondents "scales." Practically no one's correspondents increase with the size of the Internet (at least not this century). The melt-down problem of spam would not apply if you only received junk mail from people and outfits you know. Besides, when one of your whitelisted correspondents goes over to the dark side, it takes only a moment to fix the problem forever. > ... > then almost all spam would be forged. I can see ways to prevent > forgery, but they all involve esoteric knowledge, trusted third > parties, and require large scale acceptance before any real > benefit is realized. Most people would balk at rejecting > a sender that isn't certifiable, even if 90% of the senders are. > Even Microsoft would have trouble achieving 90% penetration. I agree with that, but others seem to have other views. > OTH, it might be possible to at least get "automated notice of > something important" messages to be digitally signed, sent from > trusted IPs or whatever whitelist mechanism becomes a standard > (assuming of course that there ever is a standard). You keep saying things related to that notion of "important messages" that I don't understand. All spam are important messages according to their senders--no sarcasm intended. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 19:47:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00493 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h52NkaC02920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:46:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52NkaB02917 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:46:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00464; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Myyt-0007i2-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:44:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Myys-0007hy-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:44:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52Ni9B02844; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:44:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h52NgUB02776 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:42:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00286 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Myuw-0007f3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:40:42 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Myuv-0007f0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:40:41 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h52NgRIa026288 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:42:27 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14664; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:42:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16091.57571.190517.305553@world.std.com> To: Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) In-Reply-To: <003001c3291e$f9d74be0$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> References: <16090.53542.652328.165398@world.std.com> <003001c3291e$f9d74be0$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:42:27 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, we could propose a simple, three-dimensional model for any spam solution whose axes would be: 1. Adoption (perhaps percentage of servers or clients.) 2. Spam reduction (percentage of spam) 3. Time (years or whatever.) and try to judge the merit of a proposal on that basis. Obviously one can't predict such a curve with any great accuracy but at least we'd be estimating the same parameters for discussions' sake. As an example, I think RMX would have a fairly steeply rising curve over time for Adoption, particularly if # of servers was weighted by the number of clients they represent (e.g., if AOL adopts it then that's a big jump), and then adoption would probably slow down a lot (i.e., early adopters adopt early and everyone else ignores it mostly), and the (measurable) spam reduction would be small to zero because I don't think it's a spam-reducer. Others no doubt have another opinion, but if accepted this might be some grounds for a common criteria. I'll dub it the "Effectiveness Axes" or E-Axes for short. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 21:57:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04034 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h531unr12498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:56:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h531unB12495 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:56:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04021; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N10r-0000sc-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:54:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N10r-0000sZ-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:54:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h531tSB12445; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:55:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h531s7B12396 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:54:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03965 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N0yF-0000rb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:52:15 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N0yF-0000rR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:52:15 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:52:57 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:52:55 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32951.52CEF310.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: FW: [Asrg] Whitelist conforming definition Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 21:50:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oops, I forgot the references. [1] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. [2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", RFC 822, August 1982. [3] Klensin, J. "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001. [4] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 821, August 1982. -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Williams [SMTP:eric@infobro.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 1:06 PM To: 'asrg@ietf.org' Subject: [Asrg] Whitelist conforming definition Group; After perusing the current submissions to the information call I made "please define 'whitelist' as it is being used..." The following is the conforming definition to date. Please note this is a definition that has been abstracted from all of the submissions, it is not meant to represent the precise definition but a consensus gathered from all of the submissions, to wit: Whitelist - Used in the context of e-mail processing for storage or forwarding to a recipient, a whitelist is a list of attributes which is used to match against incoming email. Mail that matches a specified attribute or attributes is passed to the recipient without further processing. Whitelisting - The addition of specified attributes to a 'whitelist' used to identify messages from senders that are 'whitelisted.' The attributes may be developed from a number of different sources of information, including but not limited to information in message headers [1,2], protocol information [3,4] or user input. The term 'blacklisting' is sometimes used as a converse of the term 'whitelisting', but this use is not well defined. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 23:15:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05281 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h533FHq18409 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h533FHB18406 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:15:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05265; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2Er-0001Dl-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:13:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2Eq-0001Di-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:13:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h533BQB18269; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:11:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53384B18073 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:08:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05162 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N27n-0001CI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:06:11 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N27m-0001Bu-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:06:10 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:05:58 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:05:50 -0400 Message-ID: <01C3295B.829FCF60.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Barry Shein'" , "bob@wyman.us" Cc: "'John Fenley'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01C3295B.829FCF60" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:50:35 -0400 ------ =_NextPart_000_01C3295B.829FCF60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I strongly suggest that the group review the proposed (draft-draft) requirements and see if they meet the goals of this group. -e On Monday, June 02, 2003 12:23 AM, Barry Shein [SMTP:bzs@world.std.com] wrote: > > On the other hand, spam has been around for almost 10 years, and has > certainly been a major concern at public sites since at least 1997, > almost seven years ago. > > So, although a quick solution of some magnitude is almost mandatory > just to stop something major kicking over the entire chessboard (death > of the net and all that), let's not completely rule out so-called > long-term, slow adoption approaches with 5-10 year horizons or even > longer. 8<...>8 ------ =_NextPart_000_01C3295B.829FCF60 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-xx.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anti Spam Research Group R. Brand Internet-Draft Procinct Security Corporation Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY E. Williams Information Brokers, Inc. May 29, 2003 Anti Spam Research Group Requirements draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-xx Status of this Memo =20 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. =20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. =20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." =20 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. =20 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. =20 This Internet-Draft will expire on Mmmmmmm dd, yyyy. Copyright Notice =20 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract =20 The purpose of the Anti Spam Research Group (ASRG) is to investigate the [spam] problem (loosely defined as =91non consent- based communications=92) as a large-scale network problem, understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. This Internet-Draft describes the high-level requirements for proposed methodologies for addressing the problem, including the rationale for those requirements where clarification is needed. Scenarios are used to illustrate some requirements. =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Conventions Used In This Document 4 1.2 Reasons for the ASRG Proposal Requirements 4 1.3 Terminology 5 1.3.1 Anti-spam 5 1.3.2 Bulk E-mail 5 1.3.3 Caller 5 1.3.4 Callback 5 1.3.5 Challenge/Response System 5 1.3.6 Consent 5 1.3.7 Consent Based Communications 5 1.3.8 Commercial E-mail 6 1.3.9 Domain Name System (DNS) 6 1.3.10 E-mail 6 1.3.11 False Negative 6 1.3.12 False Positive 6 1.3.13 Legitimate Messaging 6 1.3.14 Message Content 6 1.3.15 Message Envelope Forgery 6 1.3.16 Message Envelope Protocol 6 1.3.17 Message Header 7 1.3.18 Message Header Forgery 7 1.3.19 Message Origination 7 1.3.20 Message Originator 7 1.3.21 Message Transfer Agent 7 1.3.22 Message Transfer System 7 1.3.23 Message User Agent 7 1.3.24 Message Store/Message Storage Agent 8 1.3.25 Non Consent Based Communication (spam) 8 1.3.26 Open Relay MTA 8 1.3.27 Opt-In 8 1.3.28 Opt-Out 8 1.3.29 Recipient/Receiver 8 1.3.30 Sender 8 1.3.31 Spammer 8 1.3.32 Relay MTA 8 1.3.33 Selective Relay MTA 9 1.3.34 Reverse DNS 9 1.3.35 Transport Protocol 9 1.3.36 Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail 9 1.3.37 Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail 9 1.4 Anti Spam Technical Framework 9 1.5 Organization of Requirements 10 2. Requirements 10 2.1 Use of existing RFCs 10 2.1.1 Rationale: 10 2.2 Inexpensive 10 2.2.1 Rational: 10 Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 2]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 2.3 Ease of Use 11 2.3.1 Rationale: 11 2.4 Ease of Deployment 11 2.4.1 Rational: 11 2.5 Interoperable 11 2.5.1 Rational: 11 2.6 Highly Effective 12 2.6.1 Rationale: 12 2.7 Persistently Effective 12 2.7.1 Rational: 12 2.8 Doesn't Interfere With The Delivery Of Legitimate Mail 12 2.8.1 Rationale: 12 2.9 Single Solution 12 2.9.1 Rationale: 12 2.10 Technical Rather Than Legislative 13 2.10.1 Rationale: 13 2.11 Complexity 13 2.11.1 Rationale: 13 2.12 Implement ability 13 2.12.1 Rationale: 13 2.13 Other Platforms 14 2.13.1 Rationale: 14 2.14 Accountability and Anonymity 14 2.14.1 Rationale: 14 3. Security Considerations 14 Informative References 15 Authors' Addresses 15 Full Copyright Statement 16 Acknowledgements 16 =20 Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 3]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 1. Introduction =20 This is an unordered simple listing of possible criteria for ASRG to evaluate anti-spam solutions. =20 The ASRG should solicit both additional criteria and also argumentation/analysis as to which criteria are appropriate and important and which are not. 1.1 Conventions Used In This Document =20 This is not an IETF standards track document[1]. As it is not such a document the keywords MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, and MAY are NOT as in [2], but rather: =20 o MUST: This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", means that the described behavior or characteristic is an absolute requirement for a proposed ASRG specification. o MUST NOT: This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", means that the described behavior or characteristic is an absolute prohibition of a proposed ASRG specification. o SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances for a proposed ASRG specification to ignore described behavior or characteristics. o MAY: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", means that described behavior or characteristics are truly optional for a proposed ASRG specification. One proposed specification may choose to include the described behavior or characteristic while another proposed specification may omit the same behavior or characteristic. 1.2 Reasons for the ASRG Proposal Requirements =20 The reasons for development this set of requirements for ASRG proposals are derived from the ASRG charter. The charter states: "The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. While some techniques focus on local text classification approaches, many traditional and evolving techniques include approaches that involve new network architectures or changes to the existing applications and protocols. =20 ASRG will investigate the spam problem as a large-scale network problem. The ASRG will begin its work by developing a taxonomy of the problem and the proposed solutions. This taxonomy should involve casting the spam problem into different perspectives, such as examining the similarities between spam and denial-of- Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 4]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 =20 service; spam and intrusion detection/prevention; and spam and authentication, authorization, and accounting. ASRG will consider the issues of deployment for proposed solutions, emphasizing the investigation of methods that have a realistic chance of wide-scale deployment. =20 The work of the ASRG will also include investigating techniques to evaluate the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions. Usefulness is described by the effectiveness, accuracy, and incentive structure of the system. The cost of the system refers to the burden imposed on users and operators of the communications system. These costs include any changes to the normal use of the system or actual changes in the monetary costs of using the system. The group will investigate evaluation infrastructures such as public trace data archives and research tools to measure and analyze the problem and the solutions. =20 ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, other than the extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the technology." =20 This scope provides the basis framework for the development and evaluation of proposals. This document provides the core requirements applied by the research group for evaluation of ASRG proposals. 1.3 Terminology =20 In an effort to develop a common reference point for the evaluation of proposals and solutions we have compiled the following list of commonly used terms relating to anti-[spam] technology and efforts. The terms are presented in the sections that follow in alphabetical order. In addition some specific applications/examples of techniques described are presented in Appendix [TBD]. 1.3.1 Anti-spam (Requires consensus definition - RCD) 1.3.2 Bulk E-mail (RCD) 1.3.3 Caller (RCD) 1.3.4 Callback (RCD) 1.3.5 Challenge/Response System (RCD) 1.3.6 Consent (RCD) 1.3.7 Consent Based Communications (RCD) Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 5]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 1.3.8 Commercial E-mail (RCD) 1.3.9 Domain Name System (DNS) A system for associating character based names with=20 numerically based internet protocol addresses [3]. The DNS works with in the framework of internetwork communications to provide names (called domain names) to zones of authority. The DNS is a facility for mapping user friendly names to transactional end=20 point identifiers (IP addresses). The DNS is heavily utilized by messaging systems to determine end point identifiers for message relays and message termination points[8]. A full definition of the operation of the DNS is outside of the scope of this document. 1.3.10 E-mail The term commonly used to describe a system of messaging based in a network of distributed systems and acted on by computer software and human actors. E-mail is a method of communications used in Internet for multiple purposes too numerous to list in this definition. 1.3.11 False Negative In the context of this paper, a false negative is as defined in [7] and is determined after a message filter test. A False Negative (FN) is where a "Message fails to match the test criteria, but the criteria are not sufficiently strong." 1.3.12 False Positive In the context of this paper, a false positive is as defined in [7] and is determined after a message filter test. A False Positive (FP) is where a "Message matches test criteria but the criteria are too aggressive." 1.3.13 Legitimate Messaging (RCD) 1.3.14 Message Content That part of a messaging transaction that contains data as described by [4],[9]. Message content consists of=20 RFC2822/RFC822 compliant data. 1.3.15 Message Envelope Forgery (RCD) 1.3.16 Message Envelope Protocol The protocol used during message transfer to insert message content into the message transfer system. The primary envelope protocol used in Internet is defined in [5]. The message envelope protocol precedes the transfer of message content and Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 6]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 terminates message content transfer. 1.3.17 Message Header That part of message content that precedes the message body=20 and/or dictates the methodology for parsing the message into message body parts as defined in [4],[6]. 1.3.18 Message Header Forgery (RCD) 1.3.19 Message Origination The process of inserting an original or revised message into the message transfer system by an MUA, a human actor or any system in the network of systems that comprise the message transfer system. 1.3.20 Message Originator An actor, human or machine, that causes the insertion of an original or revised message into the message transfer system. 1.3.21 Message Transfer Agent =20 A Message Transfer Agent (MTA) is a system within the Message Transfer System that participates in message transport on the behalf of Message Originators. 1.3.22 Message Transfer System The definition of the Message Transfer System (MTS) is described by the following and associates elements in the MTS as follows: Message Transfer System +---> MTA <-> MTA <-> MTA <----+ | | | | | V V | MUA <-> MS MS <-> MUA The MTS also exhibits control points as described in [7]=20 for addressing [spam]. 1.3.23 Message User Agent A program or user interface that provides access for a human actor to the MTS and/or messages stored in a message store. A message user agent (MUA) provides the human friendly interface, if needed, for sending and receiving message transactions. It may also supply an user-level programming interface, for programmatic access to user functionality. An MUA may=20 also provide capabilities for editing, deleting, filtering,=20 sorting and storing messages. MUA features vary across=20 platforms and implementations. =20 Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 7]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 1.3.24 Message Store/Message Storage Agent A system that provides storage for messages, the system usually is acting on behalf of a human actor, but this is not required. An MUA may act on a local message store or may provide access=20 to a remote message storage system, or both. In the latter sense the term message storage agent is typically used. The term message store (MS) is usually, though not exclusively associated with a system where messages are stored prior to retrieval by an MUA. =20 1.3.25 Non Consent Based Communication (spam) (RCD) 1.3.26 Open Relay MTA An MTA which is configured to relay mail for local domains and foreign domains not associated with the MTA, without restricting access to the relay functions. In essence an Open Relay MTA=20 typically relays messages for known and unknown domains because=20 of improper configuration. =20 1.3.27 Opt-In (RCD) 1.3.28 Opt-Out (RCD) 1.3.29 Recipient/Receiver A computer system, application or process that is the final, terminating end of a messaging transmission sequence. A receiver is engaged in the activity of receiving final=20 delivery of a message comprising an message envelope and=20 optional content. A receiver usually is acting on behalf of a human actor, but this is not required. 1.3.30 Sender A computer system, application or process that is the origin, terminating end of a messaging transmission sequence. A sender is engaged in the activity of initial posting of a message=20 comprising an message envelope and optional content. A sender=20 usually is acting on behalf of a human actor, but this is not=20 required. Sender may also be a message header field [4]. 1.3.31 Spammer (RCD) 1.3.32 Relay MTA An MTA configured to participate in a store-and-forward=20 sequence between a sender's MTA and a receiver's MTA. The=20 term Relay MTA is meant to apply to MTA systems that do not=20 transact with MUAs, but only with other MTAs. Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 8]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 1.3.33 Selective Relay MTA An MTA configured to recognize and participate in a store-and-forward sequence between a sender's MTA and a=20 receiver's MTA but only for messages that are originated from known domains[8]. A Selective Relay MTA is distinguished from=20 other Relay MTAs by performing authentication and/or=20 origination checks before relaying a message. The term=20 Selective Relay MTA may apply to MTA systems that transact=20 with MUAs, and with other MTAs. 1.3.34 Reverse DNS Term used to describe the process of using the DNS to query for a mapping from numeric end point identifier (IP address) to character based user friendly name (domain name). 1.3.35 Message Transfer Protocol For purposes of this document a Message Transfer Protocol=20 describes a communications protocol used to communicate=20 information between computer systems for the purpose of=20 performing the exchange of application message data. The=20 protocol may provide reliable or unreliable communications. =20 The Transfer Protocol is independent of message content,=20 although it may impose other communications constraints. 1.3.36 Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail (RCD) 1.3.37 Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (RCD) 1.4 Anti Spam Technical Framework =20 This document assumes the technical framework for anti-[spam] proposals using the terminology defined in Section 1.3, we assume the MTS is the primary means for transferring messages among senders and recipients. The MTS consists of at least two MTAs, MUAs and MS systems. The MTS relies on the DNS to locate network information about relevant systems. The MTS uses various transport, envelope and message technologies that are well known to [spammers] and MTS applications. These are the only assumptions we make concerning approaches to proposals that will be evaluated. Using that logic the following should not matter: =20 o Whether MTA, MUA, the MTS or some MTS component, e.g. MS; is the platform for the proposed solution. o Whether the proposed solution is the specification of protocol extensions or an entirely new protocol. o Whether the proposed solution uses existing technologies or leverages existing technology. Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 9]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 1.5 Organization of Requirements =20 The requirements outlined in this document reflect the high level aspects for operational deployment of a solution. For each requirement we will state the requirement as clearly as possible without attempting to dictate a specific idea. Then the rationale for stating the requirement and its importance will be given along with its relative usefulness to a proposal or specification. Optionally, we will provide an operational scenario describing how such a feature may be used in the environment being considered. Scenario=92s are only illustrative of actions a feature might enable. =20 It is expected that proposals will at a minimum meet the requirements laid out in this document. However, this document should only be used generally as a single criteria among others=20 used to evaluate a proposal. The ASRG may use additional=20 metrics for evaluation of proposals of competing designs. 2. Requirements 2.1 Use of existing RFCs =20 ASRG proposals SHALL reference and use previously published RFCs where possible. 2.1.1 Rationale: =20 The IETF has already completed a great deal of research and work into the areas of authentication, identification, authorization, messaging and messaging communications and other related protocols. In order to facilitate the work of this group and its search for a solution it is wise to consider defined and accepted standards. 2.2 Inexpensive =20 The proposal MUST consider the computational and storage expense for users and technologies within the MTS utilizing the proposed approach. 2.2.1 Rational: =20 Any additional overhead imposed on systems in the operating environment may influence the level of deployment of the proposed approach. To enhance deployment opportunities it is smart to consider the impact of the approach on computational and human resources. =20 Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 10]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 2.3 Ease of Use =20 The approach SHALL consider the ease of use for message system managers, senders and recipients in all messaging situations. 2.3.1 Rationale: =20 For successful adoption by the user community proposals must provide support for typical and atypical messaging situations involving two or more parties. Many different correspondent scenarios exist in the MTS a proposal which limits the ease of messaging in existing scenarios will limit adoption. 2.4 Ease of Deployment =20 The proposal SHOULD consider deployment on any basis and take into account existing systems deployed and operating in the MTS. 2.4.1 Rational: =20 Any solution to the problems with =91spam=92 should be easily deployed to facilitate either incremental or wide-spread adoption. Existing systems will likely continue to be used, thus a solution that leverages existing technology or MTS =91anti- spam=92 implementations will also speed introduction. A proposal that relies on non-existent infrastructure or technology is not likely to be deployed. 2.5 Interoperable =20 Proposals MUST be interoperable with existing MTS uses. 2.5.1 Rational: =20 In order to be widely deployed and functional in the existing environment the proposal must consider interoperation with legacy protocols and systems. The existing MTS environment consists of web based messaging client, offline MUAs, MUAs that support direct access to MS and delivery to MTA relays, etc. Additionally, the platforms that manage messaging applications are also heterogeneous, designers must consider the practicality of operation using multiple operating systems and technologies. Proposals must not be specific to a single operating system or system platform. Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 11]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 2.6 Highly Effective =20 The proposal MUST provide an effective solution and identify the subset of [spam] it will be effective against with Assumptions. 2.6.1 Rationale: =20 Although proposals may differ in approach all proposals will be evaluated using an appropriate application of the assumptions presented and the solution set described. This will provide a consistent basis and measures for evaluation of the approach. 2.7 Persistently Effective =20 The proposal SHOULD provide more than a step in an environment of escalating countermeasures. 2.7.1 Rational: =20 Authors should consider the status quo concerning the development and deployment of stop-gap measures a failure. Solutions or research into the problem should present a threat analysis with the threat(s) being addressed, protection goals, possible countermeasures and defenses against those countermeasures over the longest period possible or that=20 provably work forever. 2.8 Doesn't Interfere With The Delivery Of Legitimate Mail =20 The proposal MUST consider, address and keep at a minimum impacts on [legitimate] messaging traffic within the MTS. 2.8.1 Rationale: =20 Proposals must consider the reasons for successful widespread deployment of the current MTS: low latency, high deliverability, scalability, functionality for multiple content types, etc. Authors should develop proposals that minimize impact in these critical areas for [legitimate] MTS uses. Thus an optimal proposal will impact only [spam] and not [legitimate] messaging traffic. 2.9 Goal Oriented Solution The proposal SHOULD provide a carefully drafted scope of its goals and its effectiveness at addressing those goals. Systems SHOULD consider how they interoperate with other [anti-spam] systems. 2.9.1 Rationale: =20 A single solution that will work for all people is the optimum Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 12]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 solution. However, designers should provide documentation that carefully scopes out the goals and effectively addresses them. Interoperation of [anti-spam] solutions may benefit the overall solution. A solution that is optimal also impacts all of the problems associated with [spam], such as [list of problem terms].=20 Approaches that impact a sub-domain of problems should be designed to leverage that approach with other approaches to broaden the overall solution. 2.10 Legislative and Policy Considerations =20 The proposal SHOULD consider how laws and policies affect, support or constrain the technology. 2.10.1 Rationale: =20 A proposal should consider how legal and policy issues affect, support, or constrain the technology. If a solution supports or is supported by particular legislation, then this should be explicitly stated. We encourage authors to understand the relationship between the technology and the legislation and=20 effects of a solution on enforcement of legislation as it relates to aiding in enforcement. 2.11 Complexity =20 The proposal SHOULD strive for simplicity versus complexity. 2.11.1 Rationale: =20 Any technical solution that meets the criteria described for success should remain as simple as possible within the constraints of the methodology. Regardless of the method used to address the problems of [spam], the proposal should be easily understood or described using simple terms. The less complex the solution or a description of its functioning, the more likely the adoption by a wide audience. 2.12 Implement ability =20 Proposals MUST represent a methodology or technology that it is possible to implement. 2.12.1 Rationale: =20 While many theories for addressing and eradicating the problems being addressed exist only a sub-set of the possible universe of theories can be developed into a solution that can be successfully implemented. In order to preserve the resources for evaluation of proposals and limit discussion of non- workable proposals, designers must present proposals where the consideration of ease of implementation, perceived Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 13]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 implementation difficulties, existing implementations, reference implementations, and/or interoperable implementations have been addressed. 2.13 Other Platforms =20 Proposals MAY consider methodologies that are effective on platforms and system alternatives to the traditional MTS. 2.13.1 Rationale: =20 Technologies are emerging and available as alternative messaging environments to the traditional MTS. Designers may consider including specific or general methodologies that will interoperate with or integrate with these emerging and alternative technologies. Methods that work with instant messengers, receive-only alphanumeric pagers, two-way alphanumeric pagers, and/or SMS/phone text messaging are some of the technologies that are considered good candidates for evaluation. 2.14 Accountability and Anonymity =20 Proposals MUST address issues of accountability and anonymity of MTS users, specifically message senders. 2.14.1 Rationale: =20 One of the most pernicious issues involving [spam] are related to accountability of the [spammers] who provide invalid or simulated information in order to =93game the system=94 provided by the current MTS. Designers MUST describe the issues of accountability addressed by their proposal. Message origination and message formatting forgery must be considered in designs, an optimal design would allow tracing of messages to the sending person, organization and/or system. Additionally, there is just cause for preserving sender anonymity and supporting the use of appropriate =91anonymization=92 services that currently exist. Designers must consider the impact of accountability by a proposal on these systems and=20 address the issues related to preserving anonymity for=20 [legitimate] uses. 3. Security Considerations =20 This document does not address security matters. However, security and privacy are important concerns that must be considered while developing a solution which deals with public and private correspondence. Security considerations should be established by the ASRG but are not presently included. Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 14]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 Informative References [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP9, RFC 2026, October 1996. =20 [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Name System", STD 13, RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, November 1987. [4] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. [5] Klensin, J. "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001.=20 [6] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. [7] Crocker, D. "Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms", work in progress, Internet-Draft draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-00.txt, April 2003.=20 [8] Partridge, C., "Mail Routing and the Domain System", STD 14, RFC 974, January 1986. [9] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", RFC 822, August 1982. Authors' Addresses =20 Rusell L. Brand Procinct Security Corporation 870 Market Street, Suite 1105 San Francisco, CA 94102 US =20 EMail: Brand@responsible.com URI: http://www.procinct.com/ =20 Eric D. Williams Information Brokers, Inc. 1309 S Street, SE Washington, DC 20020 US =20 EMail: eric@infobro.com URI: http://www.infobro.com/ Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 15]=20 =0CInternet-Draft Requirements May 29, 2003 Full Copyright Statement =20 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. =20 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. =20 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. =20 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgements =20 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. The following individuals contributed substantially to this document and should be recognized for their efforts. This document would not exist without their help: Dave Crocker John Kyme [william-at-elan.net] Alan DeKok J C Lawrence Phillip Hallam-Baker Steven F Siirila Jason Hihn Brad Templeton Paul Judge Jim Youll Brand & Williams Expires: Mmmmmmm D, YYYY [Page 16]=20 ------ =_NextPart_000_01C3295B.829FCF60-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 23:22:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05437 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h533LuY18716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:21:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h533LuB18713 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:21:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05421; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2LI-0001Fz-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:20:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2LH-0001Fw-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:20:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5339JB18113; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:09:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53383B18069 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:08:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05159 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N27m-0001CD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:06:10 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N27m-0001Bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:06:10 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:05:50 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:05:48 -0400 Message-ID: <01C3295B.814AEDC0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'mathew'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:44:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:21 PM, mathew [SMTP:meta@pobox.com] wrote: 8<...>8 for brevity only. > > 1. I send mail to Joe Smith. > 2. I get a bounce message saying that there's no Joe Smith account, and > that > my e-mail wasn't delivered. I delete it immediately, of course. 8<...>8 If your eMail server responds that a user does not exist, that is the proper response. The proper response should be that the status of the delivery is 'pending some disposition' or 'policy determination'. That is the argument that it seems is at the root of this issue. I did respond to a challenge from the system when I sent a previous eMail. I may have recieved a "no such user" response in-band to the 'converstation'. I may have deleted it as you suggest however. In any event the only reason I did respond is that I knew that a message had been sent directly to that recipient, so you point is _very_ valid. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 2 23:23:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05466 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h533MZM18757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:22:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h533MYB18754 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:22:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05456; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2Lu-0001GQ-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:20:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2Lu-0001GN-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:20:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h533J2B18597; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:19:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h533I4B18545 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:18:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05354 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2HX-0001Ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:16:15 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N2HX-0001ET-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:16:15 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:16:51 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:16:49 -0400 Message-ID: <01C3295D.0B3DE950.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Barry Shein'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:16:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the earlier drafts of the draft-asrg-requirements-xx.txt output there was a consideration of a methodology for considering effectiveness. This was dropped because many (or few) assumptions may be described that constrain the solution in some. Thus this type of methodology was dropped in favor of proposals that enumerate the assumptions of the proposed solution (and the set of 'spam' problems that are being addressed) and the solution set described. -e P.S. I do think that the following is a valid approach to a basis set of assumption axes, though there may be other dimensions that could be considered. On Monday, June 02, 2003 7:42 PM, Barry Shein [SMTP:bzs@world.std.com] wrote: > > Well, we could propose a simple, three-dimensional model for any spam > solution whose axes would be: > > 1. Adoption (perhaps percentage of servers or clients.) > 2. Spam reduction (percentage of spam) > 3. Time (years or whatever.) > > and try to judge the merit of a proposal on that basis. > > Obviously one can't predict such a curve with any great accuracy but > at least we'd be estimating the same parameters for discussions' sake. > > As an example, I think RMX would have a fairly steeply rising curve > over time for Adoption, particularly if # of servers was weighted by > the number of clients they represent (e.g., if AOL adopts it then > that's a big jump), and then adoption would probably slow down a lot > (i.e., early adopters adopt early and everyone else ignores it > mostly), and the (measurable) spam reduction would be small to zero > because I don't think it's a spam-reducer. > > Others no doubt have another opinion, but if accepted this might be > some grounds for a common criteria. > > I'll dub it the "Effectiveness Axes" or E-Axes for short. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 02:37:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21200 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h536bMD12095 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:37:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536bLB12091 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:37:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21192; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5OL-0002Vi-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:35:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5OK-0002Vf-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:35:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536XaB11439; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:33:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536WfB11395 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:32:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21143 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5Jo-0002V4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:30:48 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5Jn-0002Uv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:30:48 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A13A635E00E6; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:33:30 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 06:36:33 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Thread-Index: AcMnmEELmwS9WY92Tr2viG1nc7lC4AB/5iUw From: "Peter Kay" To: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h536WfB11396 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:32:01 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit OK, several requests are good enough for me. Data is posted. There are 3 different spreadsheets at: www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logScot.xls www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logLes.xls www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPeter.xls All 3 accounts are protected by The Titan Key. "Scot" and "Les" are accounts that have been inactive for over a year and recently revived for testing purposes. The "peter" account is actually my own personal older account. Each spreadsheet contains several tabs as follows: "Chart" is a chart of the attacks for the past 60 with a linear regression trendline across the series. "ChartData" contains a table of the values and labels to draw the chart "PivotTable" is a pivotTable of the raw data used to collate data by the day of the year "Raw Data" is report of the date, FROM address, To address, status (internal), and day of year I've purposely hidden the email "TO" addresses for my own personal account as it is still active and there are privacy issues. Scot and Les have no privacy issues at this point as they have been inactive for over a year. I'm not a scientist nor a mathematician. My observations are only one of a layperson that likes messing around with excel. I say the results are officially "inconclusive". Scot trendline is going down slightly. Les' trendline is going up. My trendline is going down slightly. Perhaps we can have the mathematicians and scientists provide qualified analysis. If it would help,I can provide additional data such as IP addresses and client hostnames. Let me know what you all think. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us] > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 7:16 AM > To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors > "improves" C/R utility?) > > Peter Kay wrote: > > I'll wait to see the responses and if positive, > > I'll post off our Web site. > If you're willing to post the data, I can't imagine why you > would wait. This is a *research* group. *Any* real data is going to be > welcomed by any rational participant -- especially if that data will, as > you suggest: "prove insightful". If you've got data, please post it! > > bob wyman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Peter Kay > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:06 PM > To: Barry Shein; Scott Nelson > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard > errors "improves" C/R utility?) > > > Good news: > > We've been "dogfooding" The Titan Key since around Jan of this year. If > the group is interested, we'd be happy to provide database logs of spam > "attacks" against email addresses that return a 550. I can't guarantee > all the data is "there" but it will at least prove insightful. > > I'll wait to see the responses and if positive, I'll post off our Web > site. > > Peter Kay > President > TitanKey Software > direct: 808-377-9221. Web: www.titankey.com > The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 02:57:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21547 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h536vTc13530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:57:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536vTB13527 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:57:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21534; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5ho-0002bb-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:55:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5hn-0002bY-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:55:35 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536s6B13411; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:54:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536rRB13375 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:53:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21423 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5du-0002Zh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:51:34 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5dt-0002YN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:51:33 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A61D48BD00AC; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:54:21 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 06:57:22 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <7606172a-4a0f-44f2-95a4-41ce8e49df1a> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Thread-Index: AcMphaAk7pdAIaCaQTiRLeQSwXwIIgAFeBVQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric D. Williams" , "Barry Shein" , Cc: "John Fenley" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h536rRB13376 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:52:49 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think the proposal requirements are very good. I also think it will be vitally important to clearly define: 1. what is spam. 2. what are the "subsets" of spam that will be addressed per 2.6 3. what is "legitimate" email per 2.8. While we are looking into the eye of the storm with the above definitions, I feel it will be vital that this group come to some consensus as to what is spam and what is not. If we can't clearly define the problem we cannot hope to clearly define the solution, nor can we clearly evaluate proposals. Peter Kay www.titankey.com The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it is sent > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:51 PM > To: 'Barry Shein'; bob@wyman.us > Cc: 'John Fenley'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: > [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) > > I strongly suggest that the group review the proposed (draft-draft) > requirements and see if they meet the goals of this group. > > -e > > On Monday, June 02, 2003 12:23 AM, Barry Shein [SMTP:bzs@world.std.com] > wrote: > > > > On the other hand, spam has been around for almost 10 years, and has > > certainly been a major concern at public sites since at least 1997, > > almost seven years ago. > > > > So, although a quick solution of some magnitude is almost mandatory > > just to stop something major kicking over the entire chessboard (death > > of the net and all that), let's not completely rule out so-called > > long-term, slow adoption approaches with 5-10 year horizons or even > > longer. > 8<...>8 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 03:02:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21632 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5372GX13818 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:02:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5372GB13814 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:02:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21627; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5mR-0002ck-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:00:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5mQ-0002ch-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:00:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536x2B13644; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:59:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h536w4B13566 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:58:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21563 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5iN-0002bs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:56:11 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5iM-0002be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:56:10 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A73248CA00AC; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:58:58 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 07:02:01 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Thread-Index: AcMpQFreU0w9x+J/TEO22HifTmvR5AAXMzmg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h536w4B13567 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:57:29 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Is submission of a patent-pending appropriate for this list? Let me know and if so we'll provide our info. Peter Kay www.titankey.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:02 AM > To: Harry Tabak; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of > previous work. > > I am going to go through the mailing list archive and add everything in. > > Thanks, > Yakov > > At 02:51 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, Harry Tabak wrote: > > >Yakov, > >Your own post, "[Asrg] News Article - MailBlocks, Patents and Prior Art", > >19 May 2003, quotes an article about Mailblock and prior art claims by > >David F. Skoll and Brad Templeton. Perhaps these claims should be added > >to your collection prior art for the Mailblock pattents. > > > >Reference to Skoll's work: > >http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF- > 8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca > >and the thread "[Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response patent". > > > >Templeton's own page: > >http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > > >Harry Tabak > > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > >>David, > >>I updated the web page > >>(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include prior > >>art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior art, > >>please post to the list. > >>Yakov > >>At 12:29 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote: > >> > >>>Vern Paxson - > >>>Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also > >>>please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), > >>>so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating > >>>prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very > >>>useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. > >>>Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. > >>> > >>>Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks patent, > >>>I'm sure others here can add a few: > >>> > >>>

> >>>Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes > >>>there!" challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. > >>>Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of > >>>previous approaches that have been used for millenia. > >>>

> >>>In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM > >>>described a challenge-response system in which the sender > >>>would be asked to process a particular solution before > >>>the receiver would accept the email > >>> > >>>[Dwork 1992]. > >>>This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92. > >>>

> >>>On May 26, 1996, > >>> >>>href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4o8cqk%248ah%40dwst13.wst. e > dvz.sbg.ac.at&output=gplain"> > >>> > >>>Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) > >>>posted how to implement a challenge-response system using procmail. > >>>This was publicly posted to the newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.misc" > >>>as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from exd48265@interramp.com", > >>>message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. > >>>This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email > >>>if it came from certain sources or included a special password in the > >>>"Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the original > >>>sender. > >>>This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a response > >>>to another query in the newsgroup. > >>>Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented challenge-response > >>>systems far earlier as well. > >>> > >>> > >>>Hope that helps, and thank you. > >>> > >>> > >>>--- David A. Wheeler > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Asrg mailing list > >>Asrg@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 03:15:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21784 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h537FGK15290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h537FGB15287 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21772; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5z5-0002ep-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:13:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5z5-0002em-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:13:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h537C7B15109; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:12:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h537BZB15070 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:11:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA21738 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 03:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5vS-0002eA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:09:42 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N5vR-0002e7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:09:41 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:11:37 -0700 At 02:21 PM 6/2/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: ... >I'm not saying it can't happen, but >asking for a better reason than "it would be nice" and "maybe someday >it will help somewhat." > Why do you want a better reason? Do you think the idea has merit? Is it worthy of further investigation? Would implementing it cause problems for the mail system in general? >> ... >> All these things are changes, and changes take time. >> But the costs are small, and the potential benefits large. > >I'm made bazillions of low cost eventually high profit suggestions in >zillions of areas over the last 35 years. If even 10% of them had >been adopted, we would be in heaven...or something. I've long since >realized there are two kinds of changes, those that I can make personally >or that can be made by people I know and can convince, and very long >shots that are almost always wastes of time to even talk about except >while "shooting the bull." > Is there some other topic you feel is more worthy of discussion? >> Most spam isn't going to look like a challenge until challenges >> are wide spread. > >Yes, and C/R systems are unlikely to ever be widespread. > I prefer to discuss the problems they can generate and potential changes that lessen the impact of those problems, even if the probability of wide spread deployment is remote. Talk is cheap, and I prefer to try the cheap stuff first. >> Even with a crypto-secure mail system, >> I can't see any way to prevent someone on whom you're dependant >> from abusing that and spamming through the whitelisted channel. >> My best answer so far is "If spam only came from the companies >> you dealt with, that's better than the current situation.". > >On the contrary, junk mail from your correspondents "scales." > Assuming that they don't increase the volume of spam they send based on their ability to do so. But even if they do, still better than the current situation. >Practically no one's correspondents increase with the size of the >Internet (at least not this century). > Quibble: Most models I've seen suggest that the number of interactions increases as the cost of communication decreases, but it would be considerably more modest growth. >The melt-down problem of spam >would not apply if you only received junk mail from people and outfits >you know. Besides, when one of your whitelisted correspondents goes >over to the dark side, it takes only a moment to fix the problem >forever. > Maybe, maybe not. Most people would be unwilling to de-whitelist their bank, insurance company, or domain registrar even if they started getting spammed by them. The probability that an "important message" really is important (to the receiver) is too high. These companies are already stuffing other peoples junk mail in with the bills. I can't see any reason they won't do the same with email. More responsive than the typical spammer of today, they'd probably limit the quantities of spam to below the average customers pain threshold. No out right fraud, or illicit come ons, but not an end to spam. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 05:18:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24075 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h539HwC25520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:17:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h539HwB25517 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:17:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24056; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N7tn-0003Ii-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 05:16:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N7tm-0003If-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 05:16:06 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h539ETB25253; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:14:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h539DeB25218 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:13:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23947 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 05:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N7pd-0003Fq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 05:11:49 -0400 Received: from law12-f62.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.62] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19N7pd-0003Fd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 05:11:49 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:13:06 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:13:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2003 09:13:06.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[582AF8E0:01C329B0] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:13:06 -0600 From: "Bob Wyman" >The issue here, as almost always, is a trade-off between >tactical short-term and long-term benefits. It is very much like >computing the present-value of some quantity of money. For instance, >what has more value? $100 in your bank account today? Or, $1,000 in your >bank account in 20 years? The answer, of course, depends on what you >think the interest rate or cost-of-capital is. Similarly, when thinking >about spam, you can ask which is more valuable: A system that rapidly >limits spam to 50% of its current level or one that eliminates it >completely in five years? >In my previous note, which suggested an objective economic >analysis as the basis for deciding between a short or long term focus, I >should have noted that it appears that the "cost of spam" is increasing >at a compound rate. Some suggest that this rate is equal to as much as >50% per year. >Given compound growth in the "cost of spam", the present-value >of any future solution is drastically reduced as the time to implement >and deploy that solution increases. Similarly, the future-value of any >short-term reduction in the cost-of-spam is drastically increased as the >time to implement the short-term reduction is reduced relative to the >time-to-implement the long-term ideal solution. >I suggest that an economic analysis of spam argues clearly and >unambiguously for the greater value of even the smallest short-term >reductions in spam rather than more perfect solutions that may be >possible in the long-term. Your argument is backwards. The economic corollary is to a large debt that we owe. If we make the minimum payments the total debt will go down slowly. Even if we pay off half of the debt, the interest will still be there compounding what remains. If we fail to make payments greater than the critical maintenance amount our debt will grow. The best option is to pay off the debt as soon as possible. Only then will we be free of the continuing burden. My original point was that there is an opportunity cost associated with putting effort into a direction. To maximize results the most effort possible should be directed in the most advantageous direction. The entire world seems to be working on short term, self beneficial solutions, and they seem to be producing a constant supply of these types of solutions. I feel time spent on longer term solutions would be of greater benefit in the long run than just adding to the existing supply of short term solutions. John Fenley ============================== I think this is a better economic model: ============================== Consider the following situation: I owe $1000, and am being charged 10% interest compounded annually. If I pay $100 per year, I am only paying interest. I could pay $100 per year for 30 years, and still owe that $1000. Over that 30 years, the total cost would be $3000 and I would still owe the original $1000. Therefore paying the $1000 up front saves $3000 over the thirty years. Short term solutions are like paying the interest. The spam problem could go on indefinitely, and the sooner a permanent solution is found, the less total energy will be lost to combating spam. I feel this is a more accurate model of the costs of spam, and it argues for a permanent solution as quickly as possible. We are not getting the interest as you implied, we will have to "pay" it until a solution is found. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 08:55:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01457 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:55:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53Csrn10887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:54:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53CsrB10884 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:54:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01375; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBHi-0005JF-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:53:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBHh-0005J9-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:53:01 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53CqDB10684; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:52:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53CoWB10572 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:50:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00996 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBDV-0005BG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:48:41 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBDU-0005BD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:48:41 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h53CoPXL015804 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:50:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306031250.h53CoPXL015804@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:50:25 -0600 (MDT) > From: Scott Nelson > ... > >I'm not saying it can't happen, but > >asking for a better reason than "it would be nice" and "maybe someday > >it will help somewhat." > > Why do you want a better reason? yes, that's what I asked. > Do you think the idea has merit? > Is it worthy of further investigation? If the idea can be specified and deployed before spam melts the net, it's worthwhile. Otherewise, it's irrelevant in an anti-spam research group. My responsibility for your idea stops with my pointing out problems that have apparently been overlooked. > Would implementing it cause problems for the mail system in general? According to my rule book "why not?" is never a design justification and "nice" and "neat" are pejorative words when applied to a design feature. If "Will it do any harm?" is not a form of "why not?", "nice," or "neat," it's not directly relevant to "will it stop spam in the lifetime of the net?" Is your purpose in advancing the idea to fix the spam problem? > >> All these things are changes, and changes take time. > >> But the costs are small, and the potential benefits large. > ... > >realized there are two kinds of changes, those that I can make personally > >or that can be made by people I know and can convince, and very long > >shots that are almost always wastes of time to even talk about except > >while "shooting the bull." > > Is there some other topic you feel is more worthy of discussion? Are we shooting the bull or looking for spam solutions that will have significant effects with 5 years? That's a serious question, because it seems almost all of proposals made in this list are what Barry Shein meant by testosterone ranting. If this mailing list were about stopping spam in our lifetimes, then not only would there be no complaints that I'm not being "constructive" by pointing out lacks of likely effects, obvious gotchas, irrelevance (e.g. measurements of what spammers do today but could easily change tomorrow), but people would self-censor ideas that will have no significant effects. On the other hand, if this mailing list is about proving that we each understand a subject that the general public thinks is very mysterious and quite important, then any sort of criticism is wrong. "Research" is not a "bull session," no matter what TV and movie writers might think. > ... > >Yes, and C/R systems are unlikely to ever be widespread. > > I prefer to discuss the problems they can generate and potential > changes that lessen the impact of those problems, > even if the probability of wide spread deployment is remote. > Talk is cheap, and I prefer to try the cheap stuff first. That talk is cheap is the fatal problem with most talk about spam solutions. Your notion of Message-IDs could easily be written as an "Individual Submission" for an "Informational" RFC. It would be more interesting that most RFCs in the RFC Index, but in 5 years I doubt 1% of mail would carry your Message-IDs. Have you noticed the reference to "Recommendations for generating Message IDs" in RFC 2919? How does your proposal differ from draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt? http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt seems to be an outlaw copy. Notice its date. (By IETF canon law, Internet-Drafts "expire" or go down the memory hole after 6 months.) > ... > >On the contrary, junk mail from your correspondents "scales." > > Assuming that they don't increase the volume of spam they send > based on their ability to do so. No, it still "scales" > But even if they do, still better than the current situation. Yes, but spam would not be the problem it is without the "scaling" issue. > >Practically no one's correspondents increase with the size of the > >Internet (at least not this century). > > > Quibble: Most models I've seen suggest that the number of > interactions increases as the cost of communication decreases, > but it would be considerably more modest growth. A "scaling problem" is one that gets worse with the growth of the net. The host table had a scaling problem. The size of a default-free routing table may have a scaling problem. Spam that grows with the number of spammers on the net is a "scaling problem." > ... > Most people would be unwilling to de-whitelist their bank, insurance > company, or domain registrar even if they started getting spammed > by them. ... > average customers pain threshold. No out right fraud, > or illicit come ons, but not an end to spam. As others have said repeatedly, ending spam is impossible and not a goal. We can at most hope to end spam as a major problem. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 09:35:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04011 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53DZKU14192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:35:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53DZKB14189 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:35:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04004; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBuq-00061G-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:33:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBup-00061D-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:33:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53DXBB14073; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:33:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53DW4B14008 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:32:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03934 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBrg-000600-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:30:12 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NBrf-0005zX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:30:11 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [66.77.69.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 22E0C13ABE; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A25D7F2F0144; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:27:57 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Peter Kay" , "Yakov Shafranovich" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:30:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why the hell not? We're a research group...any information is helpful. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Peter > Kay > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:57 AM > To: Yakov Shafranovich; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track > evidence of previous work. > > > Is submission of a patent-pending appropriate for this list? Let me know > and if so we'll provide our info. > > Peter Kay > www.titankey.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:02 AM > > To: Harry Tabak; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track > evidence of > > previous work. > > > > I am going to go through the mailing list archive and add everything > in. > > > > Thanks, > > Yakov > > > > At 02:51 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, Harry Tabak wrote: > > > > >Yakov, > > >Your own post, "[Asrg] News Article - MailBlocks, Patents and Prior > Art", > > >19 May 2003, quotes an article about Mailblock and prior art claims > by > > >David F. Skoll and Brad Templeton. Perhaps these claims should be > added > > >to your collection prior art for the Mailblock pattents. > > > > > >Reference to Skoll's work: > > >http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF- > > 8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca > > >and the thread "[Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response > patent". > > > > > >Templeton's own page: > > >http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > > > > >Harry Tabak > > > > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > > > >>David, > > >>I updated the web page > > >>(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include > prior > > >>art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior > art, > > >>please post to the list. > > >>Yakov > > >>At 12:29 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote: > > >> > > >>>Vern Paxson - > > >>>Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also > > >>>please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), > > >>>so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating > > >>>prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very > > >>>useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. > > >>>Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. > > >>> > > >>>Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks > patent, > > >>>I'm sure others here can add a few: > > >>> > > >>>

> > >>>Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes > > >>>there!" challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. > > >>>Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of > > >>>previous approaches that have been used for millenia. > > >>>

> > >>>In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM > > >>>described a challenge-response system in which the sender > > >>>would be asked to process a particular solution before > > >>>the receiver would accept the email > > >>> href="http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/junk1.pdf"> > > >>>[Dwork 1992]. > > >>>This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92. > > >>>

> > >>>On May 26, 1996, > > >>> > > >>>href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4o8cqk%248ah%40dwst13.wst. > e > > dvz.sbg.ac.at&output=gplain"> > > >>> > > >>>Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) > > >>>posted how to implement a challenge-response system using > procmail. > > >>>This was publicly posted to the newsgroup > "news.admin.net-abuse.misc" > > >>>as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from > exd48265@interramp.com", > > >>>message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. > > >>>This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email > > >>>if it came from certain sources or included a special password in > the > > >>>"Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the > original > > >>>sender. > > >>>This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a > response > > >>>to another query in the newsgroup. > > >>>Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented > challenge-response > > >>>systems far earlier as well. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Hope that helps, and thank you. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>--- David A. Wheeler > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Asrg mailing list > > >>Asrg@ietf.org > > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 09:45:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04280 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53DidU15537 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:44:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53DidB15534 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:44:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04266; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NC3r-00065a-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:42:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NC3q-00065X-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:42:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53Dh4B15451; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:43:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53Dg7B15425 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:42:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04160 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NC1P-00063B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:40:15 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NC1O-000633-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:40:14 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [66.77.69.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id B9DD813A0E; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A58AFFC000B4; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:41:30 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <16091.57571.190517.305553@world.std.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] CRI Header Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:43:57 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI control headers. It seems we can do the following: 1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not limited to the envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that could remove such headers. We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing CRI. 2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field altogether or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8 3) Use MIME headers (registered or private): though CRI has little relavancy with MIME. Private headers can not become a standard. There isn't such a limitation on 2822 3.6.8 Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 11:15:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08678 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53FF0l23717 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:15:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53FF0B23714 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:15:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08639; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NDTL-0006vA-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:13:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NDTK-0006v7-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:13:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53FDTB23605; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:13:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53FCCB23525 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:12:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08536 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NDQd-0006su-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:10:23 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NDQc-0006sr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:10:23 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h53FC5Mi013109 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:12:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306031512.h53FC5Mi013109@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:12:05 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Eric Dean" > Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI control headers. > It seems we can do the following: > > 1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not limited to the > envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that could remove > such headers. We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing > CRI. > > 2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field altogether > or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8 > > 3) Use MIME headers (registered or private): though CRI has little relavancy > with MIME. Private headers can not become a standard. There isn't such a > limitation on 2822 3.6.8 > > Thoughts? If the goal is to get a CRI protocol defined and deployed to stop some spam, why do you care about the fact that private headers (presumably X-whatever) cannot become a standard? I thought you guys were clever to use MIME for more than one reason. Pushing a new official RFC 2822 header (other than an ad hoc X-whatever) through the IETF would take a year or more and you might fail. That you are sure challenge/response systems will be effective against spam will be a weak response to Last Call criticisms. However, I've the impression that MIME headers don't have that bureuacratic problem to the same degree. That should be checked. MIME in either or both directions might allow you to pass more data than a header. For example, do you have cryptographic authenticators of either the challenge or the response? What about an authenticator of the original sender for the receipient/challenger's whitelist for subsequent mail? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 13:51:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16458 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53Hp4507672 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:51:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53Hp4B07669 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:51:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16420; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFuK-00012n-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:49:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFuJ-00012k-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:49:11 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HmsB07495; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:48:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HiBB07144 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:44:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16092 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFnf-0000yV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:42:19 -0400 Received: from 000-238-901.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.172.142] helo=68.27.172.142) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFnc-0000yS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:42:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030603134339.00b46360@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track evidence of previous work. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:43:40 -0400 I would suggest that you fill out the template provided on http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html just so we would have your IP listed for the record. Yakov At 08:57 PM 6/2/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >Is submission of a patent-pending appropriate for this list? Let me know >and if so we'll provide our info. > >Peter Kay >www.titankey.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:02 AM > > To: Harry Tabak; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Tracking patent claims - please also track >evidence of > > previous work. > > > > I am going to go through the mailing list archive and add everything >in. > > > > Thanks, > > Yakov > > > > At 02:51 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, Harry Tabak wrote: > > > > >Yakov, > > >Your own post, "[Asrg] News Article - MailBlocks, Patents and Prior >Art", > > >19 May 2003, quotes an article about Mailblock and prior art claims >by > > >David F. Skoll and Brad Templeton. Perhaps these claims should be >added > > >to your collection prior art for the Mailblock pattents. > > > > > >Reference to Skoll's work: > > >http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF- > > 8&selm=56luge%246on%40bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca > > >and the thread "[Asrg] Not again - another challenge/response >patent". > > > > > >Templeton's own page: > > >http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html > > > > > >Harry Tabak > > > > > >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > > > >>David, > > >>I updated the web page > > >>(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html) to include >prior > > >>art. If anyone else knows of any IPR information including prior >art, > > >>please post to the list. > > >>Yakov > > >>At 12:29 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote: > > >> > > >>>Vern Paxson - > > >>>Thanks for tracking patent claims. Could you also > > >>>please track evidence of previous work ("Potential Prior Art"), > > >>>so that those who are interested in potentially-invalidating > > >>>prior art can learn of them too? I think that would be very > > >>>useful information for anyone doing anti-spam research. > > >>>Hopefully, others on this list will help fill out any entries. > > >>> > > >>>Here are some potential prior art entries for the Mailblocks >patent, > > >>>I'm sure others here can add a few: > > >>> > > >>>

> > >>>Challenge-response is simply an automation of the "Halt! Who goes > > >>>there!" challenge that guards have been issuing for millenia. > > >>>Thus, this patent can be challenged as a trivial automation of > > >>>previous approaches that have been used for millenia. > > >>>

> > >>>In 1992, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM > > >>>described a challenge-response system in which the sender > > >>>would be asked to process a particular solution before > > >>>the receiver would accept the email > > >>>href="http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/junk1.pdf"> > > >>>[Dwork 1992]. > > >>>This work was publicly presented at Crypto '92. > > >>>

> > >>>On May 26, 1996, > > >>> > > >>>href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4o8cqk%248ah%40dwst13.wst. >e > > dvz.sbg.ac.at&output=gplain"> > > >>> > > >>>Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) > > >>>posted how to implement a challenge-response system using >procmail. > > >>>This was publicly posted to the newsgroup >"news.admin.net-abuse.misc" > > >>>as the subject "Re: Unsolicited junk email from >exd48265@interramp.com", > > >>>message-ID <4o8cqk$8ah@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>#1/1. > > >>>This was a simple script that accepted email that accepted email > > >>>if it came from certain sources or included a special password in >the > > >>>"Subject" line; otherwise, a challenge was replied back to the >original > > >>>sender. > > >>>This posting included the code to implement the approach, as a >response > > >>>to another query in the newsgroup. > > >>>Indeed, there are hints that others have implemented >challenge-response > > >>>systems far earlier as well. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Hope that helps, and thank you. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>--- David A. Wheeler > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Asrg mailing list > > >>Asrg@ietf.org > > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 14:01:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17030 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53I0lb08829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:00:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53I0lB08826 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:00:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17009; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NG3i-0001AP-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:58:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NG3i-0001AM-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:58:54 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HxAB08554; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:59:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HujB08321 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:56:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16818 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFzo-00017O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:54:52 -0400 Received: from 000-238-901.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.172.142] helo=68.27.172.142) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFzm-000175-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:54:51 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030603135141.00b36198@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <200306031512.h53FC5Mi013109@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:56:13 -0400 At 09:12 AM 6/3/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Eric Dean" > > > Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI control headers. > > It seems we can do the following: > > > > 1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not limited > to the > > envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that could remove > > such headers. We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing > > CRI. > > > > 2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field altogether > > or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8 > > > > 3) Use MIME headers (registered or private): though CRI has little > relavancy > > with MIME. Private headers can not become a standard. There isn't such a > > limitation on 2822 3.6.8 > > > > Thoughts? > >If the goal is to get a CRI protocol defined and deployed to stop some >spam, why do you care about the fact that private headers (presumably >X-whatever) cannot become a standard? Inter-operability is a key, if X- headers are used (or MIME "x." type) then nothing stops someone from making their own ones. The whole point of such protocol is that it would be a standard that cannot be changes at the whims of some vendor. >I thought you guys were clever to use MIME for more than one reason. >Pushing a new official RFC 2822 header (other than an ad hoc X-whatever) >through the IETF would take a year or more and you might fail. That >you are sure challenge/response systems will be effective against spam >will be a weak response to Last Call criticisms. However, I've the >impression that MIME headers don't have that bureuacratic problem to >the same degree. That should be checked. According to section 2.1.1 of RFC 2048, there is plenty of bureaucratic problems involved. I am assuming that we would want to register this MIME type under the IETF tree, if so the following from RFC 2048 applies: "The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC." The MIME type would have to go through the standards process anyway. Additionally, all MIME types of type "message" which I am assuming will be used for CRI, have been registered based on RFCs (take a look at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 14:05:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17272 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:05:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53I5U409312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:05:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53I5UB09309 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:05:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17262; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NG8H-0001DD-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:03:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NG8H-0001DA-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:03:37 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53I43B09159; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:04:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53I3JB09014 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:03:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17168 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:03:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NG6A-0001Bj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:01:26 -0400 Received: from 000-238-901.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.172.142] helo=68.27.172.142) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NG68-0001Ba-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:01:25 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030603140002.00babcb8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header [correction] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:02:58 -0400 On second though, after perusing the application subtree at IANA (http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/) there are plenty of MIME types that are based on Internet drafts and informational RFCs. Perhaps the bureaucracy would not be that much of a problem. At 09:12 AM 6/3/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Eric Dean" > > > Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI control headers. > > It seems we can do the following: > > > > 1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not limited > to the > > envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that could remove > > such headers. We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing > > CRI. > > > > 2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field altogether > > or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8 > > > > 3) Use MIME headers (registered or private): though CRI has little > relavancy > > with MIME. Private headers can not become a standard. There isn't such a > > limitation on 2822 3.6.8 > > > > Thoughts? > >If the goal is to get a CRI protocol defined and deployed to stop some >spam, why do you care about the fact that private headers (presumably >X-whatever) cannot become a standard? Inter-operability is a key, if X- headers are used (or MIME "x." type) then nothing stops someone from making their own ones. The whole point of such protocol is that it would be a standard that cannot be changes at the whims of some vendor. >I thought you guys were clever to use MIME for more than one reason. >Pushing a new official RFC 2822 header (other than an ad hoc X-whatever) >through the IETF would take a year or more and you might fail. That >you are sure challenge/response systems will be effective against spam >will be a weak response to Last Call criticisms. However, I've the >impression that MIME headers don't have that bureuacratic problem to >the same degree. That should be checked. According to section 2.1.1 of RFC 2048, there is plenty of bureaucratic problems involved. I am assuming that we would want to register this MIME type under the IETF tree, if so the following from RFC 2048 applies: "The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC." The MIME type would have to go through the standards process anyway. Additionally, all MIME types of type "message" which I am assuming will be used for CRI, have been registered based on RFCs (take a look at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 14:17:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17885 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53IGjo11656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:16:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53IGiB11653 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:16:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17858; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGJA-0001Np-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:14:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGJ9-0001Nm-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:14:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53IF8B11327; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:15:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53ID8B11072 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:13:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17623 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGFf-0001K5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:11:15 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGFc-0001K2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:11:14 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h53ICq9C022852 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:12:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306031812.h53ICq9C022852@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030603135141.00b36198@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:12:52 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > >If the goal is to get a CRI protocol defined and deployed to stop some > >spam, why do you care about the fact that private headers (presumably > >X-whatever) cannot become a standard? > > Inter-operability is a key, if X- headers are used (or MIME "x." type) then > nothing stops someone from making their own ones. The whole point of such > protocol is that it would be a standard that cannot be changes at the whims > of some vendor. No, that is not the point of such a protocol, because the IETF does not have an army. The whims of vendors are not prevented by words in documents labelled "RFC." The only people who really pay attention to RFCs are programmers trying make things compatible and users, often out of a misplaced religious reverence. There are no "netcops" who will disconnect non-conformant systems. There have been and always will be many cases where vendors have blandly ignored the clear words in standards track RFCs. More important, any vendor that wants to build a protocol with some (other) X-header is always absolutely free to do so, no matter what other protocols have been designed or are in use. That is by design and intent. A stanards track challenge/response RFC or official SMTP header would have no effect on anyone who doesn't want to play your game by your rules. The only effective purpose of an RFC is to document things so that people who do want to play by other people's rules can learn what those rules are. > ... > According to section 2.1.1 of RFC 2048, there is plenty of bureaucratic > problems involved. I am assuming that we would want to register this MIME > type under the IETF tree, if so the following from RFC 2048 applies: > > "The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet > Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and > publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC." > > The MIME type would have to go through the standards process anyway. > Additionally, all MIME types of type "message" which I am assuming will be > used for CRI, have been registered based on RFCs (take a look at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/). That is mistaken. IESG approval and writing an Informational or Experimental RFC is very quick and easy compared to getting consenus in the appropriate WG for an official and so Standards Track SMTP header. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 14:25:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18208 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53IOfk12428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:24:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53IOfB12425 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:24:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18167; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGQq-0001Ri-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:22:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGQp-0001Rf-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:22:47 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53IN5B12221; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:23:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53IM5B12133 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:22:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18081 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGOK-0001QC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:20:12 -0400 Received: from law12-f20.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.20] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NGOJ-0001Pp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:20:11 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:21:29 -0700 Received: from 12.254.138.252 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 18:21:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.254.138.252] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2003 18:21:29.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3B2BAE0:01C329FC] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 12:21:29 -0600 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by www1.ietf.org id h53IN5B12221 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h53IOfB12425 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Here is an informal C/R interworking system I have been working on lately: I see 3 different types of C/R systems with varying levels of verification based on what kind of information is wanted by the challenger: 1. Address verification. Challenge gets delivered therefore address is valid. 2. Address + Message verification. Asks if system really sent the message being challenged. 3. Address + Message + Human verification. Requires human response to challenge. These differences in motivations should be taken into account when working to ensure interoperability because these types of challenges will take different forms, and must be responded to differently. 1 is just an address probe. RFC 821 describes a VRFY command for this purpose (does it work?). If this can be used I recommend it's use for address verification to all makers of C/R systems. 2 could be done in SMTP time, but might be better done at the MUA. This type of challenge could be answered automatically at the MUA. This type of check would be useful to do to all messages, even ones for whom the address is already whitelisted as it essentially authenticates the sender, and spoofing a sending address becomes difficult or impossible, though there are tradeoffs, and another form of authentication would probably be better. This type of check would also eliminate the possibility that a spammer would specify a random address to be challenged (see original message section) in the hopes that the random party would answer the challenge, and help a spam message pass through another person's system. The challenged party should be able to say "no, I didn't send that". 3 must be done at the MUA. Hashcash and other proof of "x" checks would require human agreement, and would fall under 3. A person should only see challenge type #3 after the message passes type 2 verification. This eliminates any advantage a spammer would receive from faking a C/R subject to an auto answering C/R system, yet allows challenges that require a human response to reach the inbox. =============================================== The original message: =============================================== The original message can have an optional machine/human readable top body line requesting that the body either not be included in challenges, or that it should be included. This line could be placed automatically. This line can also specify an address that challenges should be sent to. This will allow anyone to use an auto-answering services to automatically answer the challenges (you send a cc: or Bcc: to the company so they can check #2 type challenges), and allow all challenges received at an address to be deleted without processing (except type 3 challenges requiring human response that come from the service, and could have a user defined subject line). C/R systems should detect and respect this by never including the message body if that request is made (even if a message checksum is not available), and by sending challenges to only the address listed here (to clear up confusion about which address to use). =============================================== The Challenge =============================================== I see the following as the minimum necessary to ensure that no loops form: Standard Subject deformation such as the addition of "CR#:" for all C/R system challenges where # corresponds to challenge types 1,2, or 3 in the list above. The rest of the subject should be unchanged (may truncate overflowing subject lines). The top of the body should contain instructions for a human reading the message, and outlining the mail handling procedure of the challenger in the event of no response. The date of the original message should be included. A unique random identifying number to be repeated back in the response so that the challenger can know that this is truly a response to the challenge sent, and not a faked response sent at the same time as the message. This also proves that the sender can answer challenges sent to the challenged address. A message specific identifier (such as an MD5 checksum of the body) so that the challenged system can determine which message was challenged... the entire body could be used, or the entire full message with headers could be included. =============================================== The Response to a "CR#:" message =============================================== Once you have the right information, proper handling of the message is necessary. Messages with "CR(any #):" Should never be challenged. Messages with "CR(1-3)" should be responded to in either the affirmative or negative.(automatically if possible) The system should be smart enough to realize when it doesn't know if it sent a message or not. Messages with "CR(4-6)" should be Processed, and the original message(s) should be delivered or deleted based on the response content, and the local policy. Responses to a challenge should retain the subject from the challenge with one change. The number in the "CR#:" tag should be increased by 3 to show that this is a response to a challenge. thus numbers 1,2, and 3 are challenges. And 4,5, and 6 are responses. This should eliminate the possibility of loops. If you receive a "CR7:","CR8:", or "CR9:" then a broken Challenge response system on the other end would be detected. A "CR#:CR#:" Tag would indicate a broken C/R system as well. The identifying number should be included in the response. And most importantly an answer to the challenge should be included (yes, no, or unknown, plus Hashcash work/human response) if one is required by the type of challenge being answered. ============================== analysis: ============================== These guidelines for C/R seem to me to solve a lot of the problems that C/R would have normally: Relative simplicity of implementation guidelines. Provides support for varying goals of C/R systems. Automatic responses to some challenges are possible, and would not inconvenience the original sender at all. Human responses are possible in old equipment, or C/R by proxy (for automatic response) could be used.. Does not rely on any outside protocols in order to operate as it requires only 2 way message transfer (does not require SMTP tweaks) Header information not required. Falsity in any part of the transaction is detected with C/R systems using this method (spammers cannot use it to help reach users unless they are stable enough to correctly answer the challenges themselves, and are thus easier to track down). Loops are virtually impossible between C/R systems using these methods. Address to challenge confusion can be cleared up. Local policy regarding un-cleared mail is up to the user. Is open ended enough that it could be used as an unlimited proof of work system (semi-equal access to all regardless of language/handicap/education/Etc...except CPU power) If Choicelist is used, then mailing lists would never be challenged, and wanted automatic mailings would pass through this system with no problems. Adoption population should rise rapidly as an auto-responding MUA will, most likely, be demanded by many senders after they receive only a few challenges. Such an MUA would probably be able to “play both roles” and challenge mail as well, thus creating a feedback loop of increased adoption pressure and C/R volume. ============= Problems I see: ============= widespread adoption would make it difficult or impossible to send or receive truly anonymous email. This does nothing to combat spammer evolution. In fact spammers may speed up their evolution unless this evolution issue is addressed. I feel confident that “ADV:” whitelisting could provide a solution to this, and would end the escalating arms race against spammers. ===================================================== Asrg Requirements from “draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-xx” addresses here ===================================================== 2.1 I have not yet searched the RFCs for support or contradictions 2.1.1 MD5 and hashcash are accepted and established systems, and I believe that randomly generated number comparisons are routinely used to prove that message delivery has succeeded 2.2 The burden falls mostly on the recipient for storage until delivery, though the sender would carry a small Checksum storage burden as well. The burden imposed on the challenged party is there by design in C/R systems. 2.2.1 Avoidance of the manual burden of answering challenges might spur adoption of auto-responding MUAs, and act as a support to adoption. 2.3 The proposed system would be mostly transparent for end users if an auto-responding MUA is used. Mail providers would be pressured to implement this system to remain competitive. This is a symptom of C/R itself, and interoperability concerns would be decreased by a standard framework to follow. 2.3.1 Not sure what atypical situations I should be evaluating, but in multiple party messages, each recipient would independently challenge the message, and the original sender would need to respond to each challenge individually 2.4 Only minor changes to most existing C/R systems would be needed, and deployment of new C/R systems is already progressing without needing a push. 2.4.1 C/R already exists, this method would just allow interoperability between them. 2.5 C/R would be interoperable under this method. 2.5.1 Old mailers are supported through Proxy Challenging to a service address. C/R is already independent of SMTP, yet compatible with it. I believe this method can be equally implemented on all platforms. 2.6 The subset of spam C/R will be most effective against will be anonymous mail from unknown parties that cannot respond to the challenges. 2.6.1 I feel this interworking method is contiguous. 2.7 If C/R cannot be made workable then I see little hope for email. 2.7.1 Possible abuses are mentioned along with the solutions I have proposed. 2.8 Auto answering of minor challenges should be trivial, and would provide a minimal barrier to legitimate message delivery. 2.8.1 this method does not limit content types, though it may introduce significant delays in the delivery of email. Those delays are a part of C/R and the auto response capability mentioned minimizes that delay in most cases. 2.9 This proposal is not a C/R system, but a standard method that will allow C/R systems to increase their interoperability 2.9.1 This has attempted to provide a solution that any party can use, and find effective. 2.10 Legal aspects were not considered. 2.10.1 Patent law would be the only possible deterrent for this method, but that is being discussed separately 2.11 This method is a simple as I could make it. 2.11.1 People can easily understand C/R on a basic level. 2.12 C/r is already being implemented. 2.12.1 I believe these have all been addressed 2.13 This method may be effective on SMS and other messaging platforms. 2.13.1 Specific implementations for other platforms have not been evaluated yet, but seem possible to me. 2.14 Anonymity is reduced by this system, though through use of a third part challenge answering service anonymity may be preserved through masking challenge delivery through them. 2.14.1 Challenge forgery is addressed, and I feel solved. Accountability consists of punishment of senders by possible message deletion if a challenge is not received, and perhaps elevated status if a response is received. Preserving anonymity, and allowing sender tracing seem like contradictory goals to me, and I can't think of any system that could do both well. ==================================================== John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 19:40:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00278 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53NdkL08769 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:39:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53NdjB08766 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:39:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00257; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLLn-00044f-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:37:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLLm-00044c-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:37:54 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53NblB08604; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:37:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53NXWB07590 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:33:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00087 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLFm-00041W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:31:42 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLFl-00041S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:31:41 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (jeanie@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h53NXS9O014284 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:33:28 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18571; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> From: Barry Shein To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:33:28 -0400 (EDT) I've been thinking about the various definitions of "spam" and thought of another criteria which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive but captures something important: Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. I think the loss of control is very much at the heart of spam and many other attempts at definition dance around this somewhat. We could add the usual unwanted, unauthorized qualifications to that (I may not want to hear from my sysadmin but s/he's authorized, etc.) but it would just make this note much longer and I think it's enough to toss out the basic idea. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 20:16:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00981 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:16:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h540FYH11127 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:15:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h540FYB11124 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:15:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00973; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLuR-0004Ge-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:13:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLuQ-0004Ga-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:13:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53NwmB09631; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:58:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53NvuB09541 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:57:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00612 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLdN-0004BQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:56:05 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NLdM-0004BM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:56:04 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h53NqdNr003863; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306032352.h53NqdNr003863@nic-naa.net> To: Barry Shein cc: asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:33:28 EDT." <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:52:39 -0400 Barry, This doesn't (yet) identify the economic issue(s). If the definition doesn't make the DMA scream, it should. It is also source-centric (and we know that sources "twinkle"). Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 21:33:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03236 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h541XAY16033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:33:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h541XAB16030 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:33:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03226; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NN7V-0004vH-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:31:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NN7U-0004vE-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:31:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h541VMB15922; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:31:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h541UcB15825 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:30:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03155 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NN53-0004ts-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:28:46 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NN53-0004td-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:28:45 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id ABF5448007A; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 15:31:33 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 01:34:38 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <3a11dfea-5519-4880-ae87-c566d02633ba> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMqMufG4WoTTdYlQCOr/4iJ/4OzLwABOlYQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" , "Barry Shein" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h541UcB15826 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:30:04 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is good. I can see we will have several definitions of spam and we need to. Spam is many things and certain technologies will have strengths and weaknesses against each of those definitions. Once we have a list of definitions we feel good about it will be much easier to evaluate the the solutions. Here's mine: Spam is transmission of mass email without the prior explicit authorization of the recipient. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:53 PM > To: Barry Shein > Cc: asrg@ietf.org; brunner@nic-naa.net > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > Barry, > > This doesn't (yet) identify the economic issue(s). > > If the definition doesn't make the DMA scream, it should. > > It is also source-centric (and we know that sources "twinkle"). > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 22:06:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04105 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5426Gq18879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:06:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5426GB18876 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:06:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04096; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NNdX-0005Bt-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:04:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NNdW-0005Bq-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:04:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5424DB18782; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:04:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54235B18741 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:03:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04038 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NNaS-0005AN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:01:12 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NNaR-0005AG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:01:11 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h5422xRP003812; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> References: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> To: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:51:20 -0400 At 7:33 PM -0400 6/3/03, Barry Shein wrote: >I've been thinking about the various definitions of "spam" and thought >of another criteria which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive but >captures something important: > > Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for > the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. Ungrammatical definitions provide no utility whatsoever. If you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say, it's also neither necessary nor sufficient. Spam is email which is sent without a well-founded belief on the part of the sender that he has the specific permission of the recipient to send that mail and which is substantially identical form to mail sent to multiple recipients. In short: unsolicited bulk email. I do not see why it needs redefining. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 22:33:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04876 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h542X0d20917 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542WxB20914 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:32:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04867; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO3O-0005QF-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:31:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO3N-0005QC-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:31:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542VMB20847; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:31:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542UWB20778 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:30:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04729 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO10-0005OP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:38 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO10-0005NL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:38 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:29 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:28:28 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32A1F.74D402B0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Vernon Schryver , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:23:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:56 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > >I thought you guys were clever to use MIME for more than one reason. > >Pushing a new official RFC 2822 header (other than an ad hoc X-whatever) > >through the IETF would take a year or more and you might fail. That > >you are sure challenge/response systems will be effective against spam > >will be a weak response to Last Call criticisms. However, I've the > >impression that MIME headers don't have that bureuacratic problem to > >the same degree. That should be checked. > > According to section 2.1.1 of RFC 2048, there is plenty of bureaucratic > problems involved. I am assuming that we would want to register this MIME > type under the IETF tree, if so the following from RFC 2048 applies: > > "The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet > Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and > publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC." > > The MIME type would have to go through the standards process anyway. > Additionally, all MIME types of type "message" which I am assuming will be > used for CRI, have been registered based on RFCs (take a look at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/). The rigor of the Last Call and criticisms of a Standards Track RFC should not IMHO be a limiting factor on the work of this group. The point would be whether a MIME type would be an appropriate methodology for addressing the 'spam' problem. This is not an IETF working group (as many have said). As a researchy group perhaps the focus would be better placed on how such a MIME type would work and/or the benefits and constraints of using either a MIME type or 2822 ad hoc private header field (X-). How such a content type would work is also a valid research area in addition to what effects such a construct would have on the 'spam' problem. IMHO I would not focus on what the IETF process is at this stage OR if it is a must to you, I would suggest including it as a constraint or assumption that is addressed by the documentation of proposed method. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 22:33:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04894 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h542XAH20939 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542XAB20936 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04872; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO3Y-0005QL-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:31:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO3Y-0005QI-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:31:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542VEB20831; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:31:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542UWB20774 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:30:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04726 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO10-0005OM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:38 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO0z-0005NL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:37 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:26 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:28:26 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32A1F.7353CB50.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:07:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:50 AM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > A "scaling problem" is one that gets worse with the growth of the net. > The host table had a scaling problem. The size of a default-free > routing table may have a scaling problem. Spam that grows with the > number of spammers on the net is a "scaling problem." Side note (again ;) - This is an interesting assertion. Does 'spam' increase in proportion to the number of 'spammers'? Sounds like a "MAY", I think that is possible. Does 'spam' increase in proportion to the number of recipients [read people eyes] accessible via the message transfer system, include here your favorite messaging technology, e.g. IM, SMS, Rim Pager, Palm? Sounds like a strong case could be made, "SHOULD". But the basis question is what is being 'scaled' the number of messages impacting recipients, the number of messages impacting the MTS or both? AND, is this a result or 1) the number of 'spamming' systems or 2) the number of 'spammers' or 3) an relative decrease in the viable 'spam space' - valid recipient addresses available to some relatively constant pool of 'spammers'? I only bring this up so that each of you may clarify your assumptions on the scaling issue. Additionally, when I make reference to a decreasing viable 'spam space' that is not an empirical or scientific assertion, but an assumption on 'spammer' practices. Please clarify the assumptions relative to the 'scaling' issue, e.g. "Spam that grows with the number of spammers on the net" v. Spam that grows with the adaptability of address 'scapers'; Spam that grows with the number of 'known' legitimate mailboxes accessible to 'scrapers'; Spam that grows ... Perhaps an analysis of these assumptions can provide some insight on what methodologies may be applicable to the reduction of 'spam' by imposing counter-measures against growth factors, e.g. poisoning the growth medium (I think that was the genesis of this thread). Thanks, -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 23:08:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05254 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5437iE23723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:07:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5437iB23720 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:07:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05245; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NOaz-0005Wr-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:05:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NOaz-0005Wo-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:05:49 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5436CB22806; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:06:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5435hB22768 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:05:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05225 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NOZ3-0005WK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:03:49 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NOZ2-0005WH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:03:48 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:03:10 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:03:10 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32A24.4D86E060.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Peter Kay'" , Barry Shein , "bob@wyman.us" Cc: John Fenley , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?)) Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:53:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:53 AM, Peter Kay [SMTP:peter@titankey.com] wrote: > I think the proposal requirements are very good. I also think it will be > vitally important to clearly define: > > 1. what is spam. A good question. > 2. what are the "subsets" of spam that will be addressed per 2.6 A suggestion from some months back. On Monday, March 31, 2003 10:35 PM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > As noted, the 4 problems caused by spam are server overload, ruination of > mailbox S/N, creation of fear of putting your email address out, and dealing > with both real and bogus complaints. > 3. what is "legitimate" email per 2.8. Yes another good question. > While we are looking into the eye of the storm with the above > definitions, I feel it will be vital that this group come to some > consensus as to what is spam and what is not. If we can't clearly > define the problem we cannot hope to clearly define the solution, nor > can we clearly evaluate proposals. Agreed. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 3 23:08:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05271 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54382d23745 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:08:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54382B23742 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:08:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05250; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NObH-0005Wx-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:06:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NObH-0005Wu-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:06:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5436JB22824; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:06:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5435iB22770 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:05:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05228 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NOZ3-0005WN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:03:49 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NOZ2-0005WH-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:03:48 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:03:14 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:03:13 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "'Barry Shein'" Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:02:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could you all and others please forward to me a brief definition of what criteria you would consider for spam. I will attempt to conform the criteria and present that later to the list and as an addition to the requirements draft set of definitions. On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:33 PM, Barry Shein [SMTP:bzs@world.std.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for > the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. > > I think the loss of control is very much at the heart of spam and many > other attempts at definition dance around this somewhat. On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:51 PM, Bill Cole [SMTP:aarg@billmail.scconsult.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > Spam is email which is sent without a well-founded belief on the part > of the sender that he has the specific permission of the recipient to > send that mail and which is substantially identical form to mail sent > to multiple recipients. > > In short: unsolicited bulk email. On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:30 PM, Peter Kay [SMTP:peter@titankey.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > Here's mine: > > Spam is transmission of mass email without the prior explicit > authorization of the recipient. ===Some of the prior input. On Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:18 AM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > My current impression of the intersection definition is mail that is: > > Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some > person commanded that mail be sent to more than > a few hundred people > > The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has > had voluntary contact with the sender in the past > > Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition, > but usually only if not including the mass mailing > component, so this might not stay) > > The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the > recipient > > If was not directly solicited (ie. is sent due to > an existing relationship) the sender adheres to > a reasonable and operational system to allow the > recipient to ask not to be mailed again (See #4) On Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:22 AM, David Walker [SMTP:antispam@grax.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using fake e-mail > headers and/or underhanded techniques. > > Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using legitimate > techniques (no fake headers) or semi-legitimate techniques but sent to > individuals who either opted out or never opted in to receiving mails from > the sender. On Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:18 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > Well (referring to the charter) how about: > A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended > recipient. On Saturday, March 29, 2003 10:52 PM, Eric D. Williams [SMTP:eric@infobro.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > SPAM - 1. Messaging in the MTS which violates best current practices for MTA > providers to assure proper canonical representation of it's originator. 2. A > message that does not reflect accurate information for its originator or that > is transmitted with simulated information nominally used to trace origination > [that's a tight squeeze as it ignores incorrect configurations]. 3) A message > with fraudulent tracking information that is in fact flawed at origination to > obfuscate its origin. > > SPAMMER - A user, company or other end entity that engages in introducing SPAM > into the MTS. On Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:38 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [SMTP:pbaker@verisign.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > Spam = Unwanted and indiscriminate messages > > Works fine here. On Friday, April 04, 2003 8:55 AM, Jim Youll [SMTP:jim@media.mit.edu] wrote: 8<...>8 > I suggest, but nobody will listen: > > "Spam" - a generic term for a problem in electronic mail whereby > people are receiving messages that they don't want to receive, and > can't stop. The "spam problem" is very simply about the right to be > left alone. > > "(fill in precise language here)" - suitable plain language for a > particular type of sender, message, measurement or other thing > related to the spam problem... one example would be "unsolicited > commercial e-mail from strangers" which can be packed into 'UCE' when > appropriate. "Spammer" is appropriate when referring to a generic > class. "Stock scammer" would be more specific. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 02:53:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05820 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h546qgK17283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:52:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546qgB17279 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:52:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05808; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:52:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS6h-0006yz-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:50:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS6h-0006yw-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:50:47 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546ogB17148; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:50:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546m6B16945 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:48:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05707 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS2G-0006y2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:46:12 -0400 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS2F-0006xe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:46:11 -0400 Received: from bbprime (208.184.79.253.songbird.com [208.184.79.253] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546oKF05422; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:50:20 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <83219933227.20030603234722@brandenburg.com> To: Bill Cole CC: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: References: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:47:22 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, BC> Spam is email which is sent without a well-founded belief on the part BC> of the sender that he has the specific permission of the recipient to BC> send that mail and which is substantially identical form to mail sent BC> to multiple recipients. Imagine a student who is researching a paper and hears about a number of different people who might have relevant knowledge. The student does not know any of these people. The means by which the student obtains the names (and email addresses) of these people is not through "mutual friends", nor public rendezvous mechanisms (such as web pages listing addresses), nor anything else that might be construed as giving permission, explicit or otherwise... The student sends the same query for assistance to each of these people. It does not matter whether the student sends a different copy (with the same text) to each recipient or puts all of the recipients into the address list of the same. And there are many reasonable examples of scenarios, like this, which qualify as spam, according to your definition, but would not qualify as spam to the general community of email users. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 02:54:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05866 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h546sVF17548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:54:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546sVB17545 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:54:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05860; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS8S-0006zM-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:52:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS8S-0006zJ-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:52:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546r3B17352; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:53:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546r0B17330 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:53:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05814 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 02:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS6z-0006z5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:51:05 -0400 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NS6y-0006yv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:51:04 -0400 Received: from bbprime (208.184.79.253.songbird.com [208.184.79.253] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h546tHF05683; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:55:17 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <26220229933.20030603235219@brandenburg.com> To: Barry Shein CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> References: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:52:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Given the direction of this thread, here is a note I posted on the ietf list's discussion of spam. We really need to start appreciating the social impact that simplistic definitions will have: TH> Spam TH> is a social problem, not an engineering one. I contend that is why we TH> already have a research group dealing with it (social problems are TH> inherently difficult for engineers, thus requiring research to figure TH> out). Focus the group on a tangible engineering problem, deployable TH> authenticated email. Or as Vixie labeled the more generic, interpersonal TH> batch communication system. The example of theft vs. locks provides a good perspective on both the truth of your observation and the necessity that we take (appropriate) action. The key insight that comes from saying "social problem" is not that we should do nothing, but that we need to have a shared agreement on the details of the problem and the level of protection required. And we need to respond to it with appropriate, but limited, changes. We are all quite comfortable making a distinction between the protection needed for a home vs. protection for a facility holding a nuclear bomb. We even are reasonably comfortable distinguishing what is needed for a home in a idyllic "safe" environment versus one in a strife-torn hell-hole. No one believes that a house lock keeps out all intruders, and indeed some do get in. But we *do* believe that house locks reduce the threat to a socially acceptable level. We have no such clarity or consensus about spam. Worse, we *all* are seriously ignorant about solutions. Anyone who says that they know the magic fix is blowing smoke. First of all, there is not yet any existence proof for the reduction of spam. Some interventions have reduced some aspects of spam, but the total size of the beast has only been growing, and rapidly. There is a key lesson here and it is mostly missed. The lesson is that spammers are adaptable and -- as is true for all security threats -- raising the bar keeps out the riff-raff but the truly serious attackers will develop a different technique. In the case of spam, those serious attackers have disproportionate leverage, because their software can be used by less-serious drones. More importantly, by saying "social problem" we are correctly implying social *complexity*. Messaging touches core aspects of social processes. No one knows how to "engineer" one property of a complex social process without accidentally impacting others. And they key import of the word "accidentally" is that these unintended consequences are typically undesired. This does not mean we should do nothing. Nor does it mean that there should be no technical interventions. It *does* mean that we need to treat this as an incremental systems change process. It *does* mean that we will need multiple types of changes, not just one cure-all. It *does* mean that we should approach those changes very cautiously, even experimentally. The place to start is with a modest, objective, operationalizable definition of the thing we all agree needs to be handled differently. So, let's not worry about the all-encompassing definition of spam. Let's just -- hah! "just" he said -- target a single type of spam that is massive and is massively offensive. My personal favorite definition, these days, is Unsolicited Bulk Mail (UBE) ("Commercial" is too constrained, for me. I do not care whether the message asks me for money, my vote, my religious affiliation, or simply wants to share a bit of personal silliness with me. In other words, the detail of the content is irrelevant to me. It does not even need to be soliciting.) Not all unsolicited mail is bad. Not all bulk mail is bad. But the combination is universally reviled. So we then need to define unsolicited properly. We must make sure to permit me to make contact with someone for the first time. Not all cold calls are bad; in fact they are essential to many desirable aspects of social intercourse. We need to make sure that we define "permission" properly -- as a kind of opposite to unsolicited -- and so we can then enjoy wonderful debates about details such as double opt-in. And so on. Still, I think the question of "unsolicited" is well-enough understood to make it possible to get community rough consensus on a technical definition that the engineering community can work with. And we need to define bulk properly. This will be difficult. If I send an unsolicited message to 2 people, does it qualify? What about 10 people, 100, 1000? Why? Why not? The problem, here, is that I believe the qualifier "bulk" captures an essential aspect of the problematic mail, so we can't simply drop the term or say "anything greater than one". Worse, the instant we choose a number, the spammers will simply send batches that are one addressee fewer than that maximum. For that matter, the number of addressees per message might not be a useful attribute, as marketeers have become good at tailoring content to individual recipients, thereby producing one addressee per message. So "bulk" requires considering behavior across multiple postings. Oh boy... And that's why this is a research topic, no matter how essential it is to to engineer some mechanisms sooner rather than latter. Let's do the engineering and deployment, and let's do it quickly, but let's appreciate that it is really research. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 06:35:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10540 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:35:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54AYjr01514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:34:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54AYiB01511 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:34:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10523; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:34:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NVZa-0000TH-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:32:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NVZZ-0000TE-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:32:49 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54AWgB01454; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:32:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54AVpB01412 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:31:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10492 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NVWn-0000Sl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:29:57 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NVWm-0000Si-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:29:56 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h54AQVNr010360; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306041026.h54AQVNr010360@nic-naa.net> To: "Eric D. Williams" cc: "'Peter Kay'" , "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "'Barry Shein'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" , brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:02:08 EDT." <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:26:31 -0400 > ... brief definition of what criteria you would consider ... One is data collection practices. The collection of idendifier data. Retention, purpose, access, etc., all follow. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 07:53:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12555 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54BrEu07685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:53:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54BrEB07682 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:53:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12542; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NWna-00011o-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:51:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NWna-00011l-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:51:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54BpZB07600; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:51:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54BluB07397 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:47:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12166 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NWiS-0000uS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:46:04 -0400 Received: from mail9.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.209] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NWiS-0000uP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:46:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 1547 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 11:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail9.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Jun 2003 11:47:53 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306040750.22393.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:50:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein wrote: > Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for > the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. Nope. Even spammers who honor remove requests, and can be easily filtered out (e.g., they start Subjects with ADV), are still spammers. Methinks the best definition is still simply UBE. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 08:29:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14233 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54CTHt10747 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54CTHB10744 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14228; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:29:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXMS-0001Od-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:27:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXMS-0001Oa-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:27:24 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54CRDB10614; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:27:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54CQCB10569 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:26:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14116 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXJT-0001Mm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:24:19 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXJT-0001Mj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:24:19 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h54CKRNr010657; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306041220.h54CKRNr010657@nic-naa.net> To: Dave Aronson cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:50:22 EDT." <200306040750.22393.dja2003@hotpop.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:20:27 -0400 Not to pick on anyone in particular, but an in-reply-to is useful ... acquisition of addresses (e.g., harvesting, sale) acquisition of delivery platforms (e.g., robo-hosts) acquisition of address blocks (e.g., /24 blocks) acquisition of journaling devices (1x1 gif references) ... None of these puts a byte in an inbox, yet. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 08:52:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15959 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54CpvS12678 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:51:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54CpvB12675 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:51:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15953; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXiO-0001uS-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXiO-0001uP-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:50:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54CoCB12623; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:50:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54CnEB12572 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:49:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15875 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXfl-0001sz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:47:21 -0400 Received: from mail14.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.214] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NXfl-0001sw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:47:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 22967 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 12:49:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Jun 2003 12:49:10 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: "Eric D. Williams" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> In-Reply-To: <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306040851.38620.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:51:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Eric D. Williams" wrote: > Could you all and others please forward to me a brief definition of > what criteria you would consider for spam. Short and sour: Unsolicited Bulk Email (UBE). To make a short story long: - If it's solicited, it's certainly not spam. - If it's not bulk, each one may be annoying, but at least it's not annoying as many people. B-) More to the point, if it's "lovingly handcrafted" Just For You, there are only so many people the sender can spare the time to bother with. Therefore they almost certainly have a well-founded belief that you (as a specific individual, not a member of some demographic) would welcome it. Therefore they are at least able to explain why. They certainly should, so as to avoid being viewed (and reported) as spammers. (Take the "same text to a bunch of different experts to ask them something for your thesis" scenario. Send each expert a separate email. Preface the question with how you legitimately obtained the expert's email. Add some flattery re why his particular work makes him well suited to answer your question. This would neither be (IMHO) spam, nor seem spammy, even though the main content is the same in several different messages.) - If it's not email (such as snailmail, phone, or SMS), it may still be annoying, but should probably be considered as a separate problem. - Some would say it must be commercial. As someone else said, I've gotten religious, political, "come look at my k00l web site", and other forms of spam. - Some would ask whether the headers (or other info, such as removal address) are faked. Although a lot of UBE does have fakery, much of it also does not. This sort of fraud is IMHO another separate question. To contrast with UCE, consider this scenario. I'm in a group called the SCA. I participate in its newsgroup, rec.org.sca. The SCA has a major annual event called Pennsic, to which I've been many times but have had to miss the past few. If someone sent me: > Going to Pennsic? Stop by Honest Achmed's, in the Food > Court. Mention this email for a free felafel sandwich > and cup of sekanjabin. I'd assume he simply harvested me from r.o.s and report him as a spammer. Note how he's treating me as part of a demographic, not an individual. BUT, if he sent me: > I see from your web site you're in the SCA, and have gone to > Pennsic many times but had to miss the past few. I hope you > get a job soon, so you can afford to go, and one that will > let you go! When you finally make it, stop by Honest > Achmed's, in the Food Court. Mention this email for a free > felafel sandwich and cup of sekanjabin, so you can see what > you've been missing for the past two years. I would not consider it spam, due to the references to things that are fairly specific to me. Sure, it's possible that he's got a list of such people (and thus might be caught by quantity detectors), but still.... -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 10:07:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20991 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54E7Vj18798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:07:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54E7VB18795 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:07:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20938; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYtV-000371-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:05:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYtU-00036y-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:05:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54DweB17442; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:58:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54DvuB17392 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:57:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19689 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYkD-0002sU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:56:01 -0400 Received: from mail2.braslink.com ([207.153.110.72]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYkD-0002sR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:56:01 -0400 Received: (qmail 8406 invoked by uid 74); 4 Jun 2003 13:57:20 -0000 Received: from afranca@voltapc.com by mail1 by uid 71 with qmail-scanner-1.12 (trophie: 6.150-1001/319/46653. . Clear:. Processed in 0.242883 secs); 04 Jun 2003 13:57:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO voltapc.com) (afranca/lagoas.com@200.160.230.236) by 0 with SMTP; 4 Jun 2003 13:57:19 -0000 Message-ID: <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Fran=E7a?= Reply-To: afranca@voltapc.com Organization: Lagoas Networking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> <200306040851.38620.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:55:32 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What differentiates spam from any other e-mail I receive is its *irritating* characteristics which happens due to 2 things: - repetitive nature - content not interesting to me If either one of the two things above is not present, then it doesn't bother me. Only when the 2 characteristics are present, then I consider it to be spam. As such, my definition of spam is: Spam = annoying message due to repetitive nature and uninteresting content. Alberto Fraanca _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 10:10:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21305 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54EAKC18959 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:10:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54EAKB18956 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:10:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21244; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYwE-00038a-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:08:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYwD-00038X-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:08:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54E34B17710; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:03:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54E2HB17673 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:02:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20181 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYoR-00030P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:00:23 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NYoP-000309-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:00:22 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h54E28A7010799 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:02:08 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306041402.h54E28A7010799@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <83219933227.20030603234722@brandenburg.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:02:08 -0600 (MDT) > From: Dave Crocker > ... > Imagine a student who is researching a paper and hears about a number of > different people who might have relevant knowledge. > ... > The student sends the same query for assistance to each of these people. > It does not matter whether the student sends a different copy (with the > same text) to each recipient or puts all of the recipients into the > address list of the same. > > And there are many reasonable examples of scenarios, like this, which > qualify as spam, according to your definition, but would not qualify as > spam to the general community of email users. The error in that is common. You are construing "unsolicited bulk email" as if it were an aritimetic formula, effectively computable algorithm (the formal notion related to "Turing computable"), or a statement in a first order predicate calculus instead of a law or rule among people. Consider the legal notion of "burglary." It is not a first order logical predicate but what a "reasonable person" sees as being in the wrong place without permission and with bad intentions. The fuzziness of "wrong place," "permission," and "malice" is intentional and vital and not a bug. Look at "cracking" or "security attack." There is no confusion there (at least among us) despite the fact that the same set of packets can be benign or an attack depending on circumstances. We each act as the legal word's notion of a "reasonable person" in that area. If the student's query were "solicited" by its targets, then it would not be "unsolicted bulk email." If it were not solicited and it involved what a reasonable person would consider lots of mail, then it would be "unsolicited bulk email." That "unsolicited" and "bulk" are not defined legalistically and as a number is a feature instead of a bug for the same reason that you don't say that every strange UDP packet a "port scan." It's odd how many people who are "reasonable" in the legal sense of a "reasonable person" when confronted with a tcpdump trace or some real mail but when talking about spam definitions turn into either GFWs or Richard Stallmans of the 1980s demanding the inalienable right to use any and all unused CPU cycles and disk space on other people's computers. (GFWs or "Goobers with firewalls" are experts with "personal firewalls" who report "hacking" from the root's DNS servers.) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 10:40:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23782 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54EdcK21960 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:39:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54EdcB21957 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:39:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23759; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NZOZ-0003bA-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:37:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NZOY-0003b7-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:37:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54EZBB20663; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:35:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54EX9B20434 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:33:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22950 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NZII-0003Ma-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:31:14 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NZIH-0003MS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:31:14 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h54EX0w2006541 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <83219933227.20030603234722@brandenburg.com> References: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> <83219933227.20030603234722@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:28:34 -0400 At 11:47 PM -0700 6/3/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >Bill, > >BC> Spam is email which is sent without a well-founded belief on the part >BC> of the sender that he has the specific permission of the recipient to >BC> send that mail and which is substantially identical form to mail sent >BC> to multiple recipients. > >Imagine a student who is researching a paper and hears about a number of >different people who might have relevant knowledge. > >The student does not know any of these people. The means by which the >student obtains the names (and email addresses) of these people is not >through "mutual friends", nor public rendezvous mechanisms (such as web >pages listing addresses), nor anything else that might be construed as >giving permission, explicit or otherwise... > >The student sends the same query for assistance to each of these people. >It does not matter whether the student sends a different copy (with the >same text) to each recipient or puts all of the recipients into the >address list of the same. Oh, you mean survey spam? Hypotheticals are a problem because one can hand-wave relevant details. Your ellipsis is telling. How DID this student get my address? That's an important bit of information, and one which you are treating as unknown in its details. (and yes, I have in the past and will in the future treat survey spam as spam. In most cases it is not simply rude and unjustifiable unsolicited bulk email, it is also a terrible research methodology.) -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 11:31:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26656 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54FVPd25838 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:31:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54FVPB25835 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:31:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26623; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NaCk-0004MI-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:29:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NaCj-0004MF-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:29:33 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54FSqB25494; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:28:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54FQBB25319 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:26:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26271 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Na7g-0004Cs-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:24:20 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com ([204.127.198.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Na7f-0004CW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:24:19 -0400 Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <200306041525380510025niee>; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:25:38 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030604085907.03460c90@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Barry Shein , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:25:35 -0600 At 07:33 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote: >I've been thinking about the various definitions of "spam" and thought >of another criteria which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive but >captures something important: > > Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for > the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. I think it would be important to note that it is AUTOMATED. For example, if I get a letter from someone who thinks that because of my business, that they have a tool that I might be interested in and if they have typed the e-mail themselves and sent it to me then as far as I'm concerned it is OK. It is OK even if I'm not interested in their product. The fact of the matter is that they actually took the time (e.g., economic cost) to sort out who they were going to send their letter to and that they sent it to me based on their judgement that it was actually relevant to me. However, much (most) spam is not targeted specifically and we get so much of it that it is overwhelming. Personally, I don't think that it is spam in itself that is so much the problem as is the fact that it is not targeted and we are all overwhelmed with it. (I get several hundred per-day that I have to sort through.) For example, if those of us who are programmers were provided with a single e-mail that advertised a C/C++ compiler that compiled what you meant rather than what you typed (and it actually worked) for those of us who are programmer's it would probably be greatly appreciated. Why would it be appreciated? Because it would have great bearing on our business and it would save lots of time and money. But if we received 1,000 of these it wouldn't be appreciated nor would advertisements for underwear (even though most people wear underwear -- making it relevant but not very relevant). The key to all this is the economic cost either in time or money or ... that the sender went through to send it. When there is no economic cost then we end up with a runaway situation such as it is today. So, as mentioned before, I think the AUTOMATED word needs to be there though I can easily envision where mail sent in an automated fashion. Also, one problem with your definition is that given a hypothetical situation where everybody actually unsubscribed you if you unsubscribed, there are too many potential mailing lists (one for each company world wide) that one would have to unsubscribe to in order to even fractionally reduce the amount of spam received. (This is of course, ignoring the fact that there are a few spammers that send most of the spam.) I don't mind people sending me something that is actually relevant to my wants and needs and I know it has been carefully considered and that someone on the other end actually took the time to compose a letter and send it to me. I do mind getting inundated with tons (if bits can be measured that way) of irrelevant crap. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 12:17:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29465 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54GH3b31103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GH3B31100 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29455; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Naut-00058c-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:15:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Naus-00058Z-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:15:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GFDB30983; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54Fu4B28492 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:56:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28391 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Naaa-0004qJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:54:12 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NaaZ-0004qG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:54:11 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h54Ftruv016037; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:55:53 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21BB@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Art Pollard'" , Barry Shein , "'Dave Crocker'" , "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , "'Bill Cole'" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=27Alberto_F?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ran=E7a=27?= Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:55:53 -0700 > I think it would be important to note that it is AUTOMATED. That is why I proposed unwanted and indescriminate. The problem the user wants solved is unwanted email It is not possible to solve that problem perfectly since there is no way for the sender to know the user's intentions and there is a lot of ambiguity. But that is the real world. What the sender can do is to only send mail that is likely to be wanted. Bulk email can be wanted, but it is very unlikely that more than a tiny fraction of a million unsolicited emails for manhood enlargement are going to be wanted. It is the indiscriminate side that is the problem. Fixing on the 'bulk' aspect is only solving the problem from the ISP's point of view. From the users point of view the fact that the email was sent to ten or a million other people is irrelevant. The problem is that she does not want it and the message was send indiscriminately knowing that this was the case. This also means that indiscriminate challenges sent by C/R systems also qualify as spam. It is easier to design anti-spam systems that block bulk mail. But I think it is important that people don't get away with anti-spam mechanisms that actually create spam. Note that my definition does not work as a legislative definition. There the issue is what can be measured and proved in a court of law. There can be no 'anti-spam' law, only laws that make certain types of spam illegal. Think of legislation as simply another type of anti-spam software. Unsolicited Bulk Commercial Email is fine for legislation, but that is the description of one particular spam filter, not of the problem the users want us to solve. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 12:17:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29480 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54GH8j31119 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GH8B31116 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29460; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nauy-00058i-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Naux-00058f-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:15:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GFGB30999; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54FvvB28663 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:57:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28517 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NacP-0004sU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:56:05 -0400 Received: from hippo.star.co.uk ([195.216.14.9] helo=matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NacO-0004sE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:56:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 18656 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2003 15:57:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO messagelabs.com) (10.2.100.90) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 3 Jun 2003 15:57:01 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Matt Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <48546842-96A5-11D7-8E9A-0003939CB5D8@messagelabs.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spam by industry sector Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:57:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Our latest intelligence report is out. As well as showing that spam is now 55% of the email we scan, we've done a breakdown of spam by industry sector. Thought this group might be interested. http://www.messagelabs.com/binaries/May031.pdf Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 12:35:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00121 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54GZAO32062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GZAB32059 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00086; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NbCP-0005Jc-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:33:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NbCO-0005JZ-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:33:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GXGB31927; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:33:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GU7B31766 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:30:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29807 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nb7W-0005Ef-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:28:14 -0400 Received: from songbird.com ([208.184.79.7] helo=joy.songbird.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nb7V-0005EW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:28:13 -0400 Received: from bbprime (208.184.79.253.songbird.com [208.184.79.253] (may be forged)) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GWOF03308; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:32:24 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <122254854451.20030604092927@brandenburg.com> To: Bill Cole CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: References: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> <83219933227.20030603234722@brandenburg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:29:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, >>The student sends the same query for assistance to each of these people. BC> Oh, you mean survey spam? No, this is nothing like a survey. A survey is a formal, structured measurement instrument. I'm talking about someone trying to chat up some folk about a topic of interest. BC> Hypotheticals are a problem because one can hand-wave relevant The hypothetical was carefully designed to highlight a mode of interaction that is of *fundamental benefit* to human activity but would be excluded by the simplistic, Draconian rules under discussion. BC> details. Your ellipsis is telling. Failure to appreciate the essential nature of the example is also telling. BC> How DID this student get my address? That's an important bit of BC> information, and one which you No it is not important. It does not matter at all. Please focus on the nature of the communication, not the means of obtaining the address. That was my specific point. AP> I think it would be important to note that it is AUTOMATED. We need a definition that helps us to create rules and software for prevention, detection and disposition of spam. How do we detect that a piece of email is automated? One might argue that comparing hashes of the content are oriented to this, but note that my example explicitly permitted identical content, yet was not spam by any reasonable criteria. HBP> The problem the user wants solved is unwanted email This means either that the recipient must be able to characterize wanted vs. unwanted in a way that permits an up-stream filter to distinguish between them. And the algorithmic basis for doing that would be...? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 12:36:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00198 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54GZbd32104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GZbB32101 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00098; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NbCq-0005Jw-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:33:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NbCq-0005Jt-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:33:44 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GY7B32005; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:34:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GVTB31855 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:31:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29871 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nb8r-0005G2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:29:37 -0400 Received: from 000-229-267.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.134.160] helo=68.27.134.160 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nb8o-0005Fc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:29:35 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604123059.00ba8d68@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:31:00 -0400 At 03:30 PM 6/3/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >[..] >Here's mine: > >Spam is transmission of mass email without the prior explicit >authorization of the recipient. >[..] From the charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html): "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires." Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 12:36:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00269 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54Ga6i32148 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:36:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54Ga6B32145 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:36:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00188; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NbDJ-0005LB-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:34:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NbDI-0005L8-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:34:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GY1B31979; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:34:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GVNB31846 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:31:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29865 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:31:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nb8l-0005Fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:29:31 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nb8j-0005Fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:29:30 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: TitanKey and "white lies"... (Faking SMTP hard errors "improves" C/R utility?) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:31:26 -0700 At 06:50 AM 6/3/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Scott Nelson > >> ... >> >I'm not saying it can't happen, but >> >asking for a better reason than "it would be nice" and "maybe someday >> >it will help somewhat." >> >> Why do you want a better reason? > >yes, that's what I asked. > I didn't ask "Why, do you want a better reason?", I asked, "Why do you want a better reason?" Perhaps if I phrased it thus; "Why are asking for an explanation of hope?" Before I launch into a bizarre and probably hopeless off topic tangent explaining why hope hasn't been crushed out of me even after many years of having my suggestions ignored, I'd like some assurance that I'm not just confused as to what it was you were asking. >> Do you think the idea has merit? >> Is it worthy of further investigation? > >If the idea can be specified and deployed before spam melts the net, >it's worthwhile. Otherewise, it's irrelevant in an anti-spam research >group. My responsibility for your idea stops with my pointing out >problems that have apparently been overlooked. > You're not even responsible for that, and I am glad that you're willing to spend the time and effort to do it. I might quibble about the style, but the function you are performing is IMO, vital, and I think you are doing an impressive job. > >> Would implementing it cause problems for the mail system in general? > >According to my rule book "why not?" is never a design justification >and "nice" and "neat" are pejorative words when applied to a design >feature. If "Will it do any harm?" is not a form of "why not?", >"nice," or "neat," it's not directly relevant to "will it stop spam >in the lifetime of the net?" Is your purpose in advancing the idea >to fix the spam problem? > > I've always assumed that it's sufficient that the balance of good outweigh the balance of harm. In other words, I try to evaluate the cost/benefit of the suggestion. The ideas were suggested as a possible solution to a problem that was raised regarding challenges - that most people have trouble remembering what email they've sent, and that spammers might therefore take advantage of the challenge vector to send more spam. Since the suggestions are part of a larger system of changes involving challenge response, the "good" is dependant on how wide spread C/R becomes. However, there is some good even without that, as I've already explained. There might be more, but it seems likely that those are going to be the biggest. The next logical question from my perspective is "how much will it cost" (what's the exact amount of harm). All changes have a cost, just by virtue of being changes. (yet another way of saying "why not? isn't good enough".) The cost here would be smaller than a normal change, since it's a proposed change to a proposed change, but I'm painfully aware that there will be an implementation cost. However, I'm also aware that it's easy for people (especially me) to overlook /other/ costs. In particular, I wonder if there's some unobvious reason why including messages-ids in a "in-reply-to:" header for a DSN is bad, would damage some part of the mail system, not work over UUCP, or ... well if I knew what else, I wouldn't need to ask. Learning about these unknown costs is the most important from my perspective. The cost of change is much easier to estimate, since change has been tried many times so there's a lot of history to compare against. >> >> All these things are changes, and changes take time. >> >> But the costs are small, and the potential benefits large. >> ... > >> >realized there are two kinds of changes, those that I can make personally >> >or that can be made by people I know and can convince, and very long >> >shots that are almost always wastes of time to even talk about except >> >while "shooting the bull." >> >> Is there some other topic you feel is more worthy of discussion? > >Are we shooting the bull or looking for spam solutions that will have >significant effects with 5 years? > Both I think, and a lot of other things too. Volunteer resources aren't limited in the same way as paid ones. Having someone work on C/R doesn't detract from work on a taxonomy which doesn't detract from work on RMX. There might be a few people who are deciding what to work on based on the general consensus of value, but mostly people only work on things they personally feel are a good idea. Convincing someone that their pet solution is a bad idea is more likely to result in them just going away than in them working on something else. Unless they're pet idea is actually harmful, it's usually better to encourage them in their folly than try and stop them. > >That's a serious question, because >it seems almost all of proposals made in this list are what Barry >Shein meant by testosterone ranting. > As Theodore Sturgeon remarked, 90% of everything is crud. This group doesn't appear to be an exception, but that doesn't mean there are no useful proposals being made. >If this mailing list were about >stopping spam in our lifetimes, then not only would there be no >complaints that I'm not being "constructive" by pointing out lacks of >likely effects, obvious gotchas, irrelevance (e.g. measurements of >what spammers do today but could easily change tomorrow), but people >would self-censor ideas that will have no significant effects. On >the other hand, if this mailing list is about proving that we each >understand a subject that the general public thinks is very mysterious >and quite important, then any sort of criticism is wrong. > >"Research" is not a "bull session," no matter what TV and movie writers >might think. > Don't kid yourself, there would be complaints about your behavior even if you were handing out twenty dollar bills and telling everyone how nice they were. People always want more, and complaints about not getting it seem inevitable to me. Likewise, there will always be a broad spectrum of the clueless, the hand wavers, the speech writers, and the chest thumpers in any public group. > >> ... >> >Yes, and C/R systems are unlikely to ever be widespread. >> >> I prefer to discuss the problems they can generate and potential >> changes that lessen the impact of those problems, >> even if the probability of wide spread deployment is remote. >> Talk is cheap, and I prefer to try the cheap stuff first. > >That talk is cheap is the fatal problem with most talk about spam >solutions. > >Your notion of Message-IDs could easily be written as an "Individual >Submission" for an "Informational" RFC. It would be more interesting >that most RFCs in the RFC Index, but in 5 years I doubt 1% of mail >would carry your Message-IDs. Have you noticed the reference to >"Recommendations for generating Message IDs" in RFC 2919? How does >your proposal differ from draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt? >http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt >seems to be an outlaw copy. Notice its date. > >(By IETF canon law, Internet-Drafts "expire" or go down the memory >hole after 6 months.) > > I hadn't, but I have now that you've pointed it out. The major difference is that my suggestions are in response to a perceived problem, rather than a "wouldn't it be great if" scenario. I wouldn't be surprised though if no one used them until after spammers actually started counterfeiting challenges, and then counterfeiting message-ids. Yes, I said I /hoped/ people would adopt them much sooner than that, but with the possible exception of challenge response systems themselves, that's not what I /expect/ to happen. >> >Practically no one's correspondents increase with the size of the >> >Internet (at least not this century). >> > >> Quibble: Most models I've seen suggest that the number of >> interactions increases as the cost of communication decreases, >> but it would be considerably more modest growth. > >A "scaling problem" is one that gets worse with the growth of the net. > Yes, and the best models I've seen claim the number of communications that are made increases as N log(N) of the number of nodes that one might wish to communicate with, which means even normal communication has a theoretical scaling problem as cost approaches zero, and the size of the net approaches infinity. But that much more modest exponential growth doesn't compare to the spam problem, which is growing at close to Moore's law rates. That's why I qualified it with "quibble". Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 14:07:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04103 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54I6eT06335 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:06:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54I6eB06332 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:06:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04079; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nccv-0006Jx-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:04:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nccv-0006Ju-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:04:45 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54I3pB06153; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:03:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54I0kB06023 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:00:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03709 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NcXD-0006ER-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 13:58:51 -0400 Received: from 000-229-267.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.134.160] helo=68.27.134.160 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NcXB-0006EB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 13:58:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140020.00ba4f80@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric Dean" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:00:21 -0400 At 09:43 AM 6/3/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: >Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI control headers. >It seems we can do the following: > >1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not limited to the >envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that could remove >such headers. We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing >CRI. As I mentioned before, SMTP would be a good solution only for those cases when two C/R systems are inter-operable and there is a need for the sender to take the burden of storing the message. Otherwise, plain email should be used so us humans can read the challenge message. >2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field altogether >or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8 Using RFC 2822 headers would limit the amount of information since each header is limited to 998 characters (as per section 2.1.1). Vernon Schryver (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05168.html) has already pointed out that MIME headers can store more information which would be a factor in case some kind of PKI signatures are used.. Additionally, some C/R systems might want to combine several challenges into one message and that would be awkward to do with RFC 2822 headers. On the other hand, if such headers are used for single sender-single receiver C/R headers are the simplest solution. >3) Use MIME headers (registered or private): though CRI has little relavancy >with MIME. Private headers can not become a standard. There isn't such a >limitation on 2822 3.6.8 > >Thoughts? Some of the purposes of MIME as stated in RFC 2045 and look perfectly suited for us: "(2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies, (3) multi-part message bodies, and" In our case we can utilize MIME to create a multi-part message with one part containing a human-readable challenge and other parts containing machine-readable challenges (i.e. non-textual message bodies). The advantages to using MIME is that: 1. We can include both human and machine requests in one messages, NOT limited in size. 2. We can include PKI signatures, hashcash codes, etc. 3. We can include multiple challenges and responses in one message. I think that all three approaches are good and they fulfill different needs. I think all three should be used and we will allow C/R systems to negotiate between themselves: 1. The basic CRI protocol should use RFC 2822 headers, with single challenge per each sender. This allows for easier use with existing email systems and non interoperable C/R systems. Such messages will have the regular challenge message for humans in the message body with additional information in the headers. Using custom MIME types can make email software choke and leave the information unreadable to a human being. 2. IF a C/R system is used by the sender, then it can identify itself either via ESMTP or an RFC 2822 header. Then the two systems can negotiate on the use of RFC 2822 headers, MIME headers or plain SMTP. This would be similar to the way HTTP clients negotiate with "Accept-Encoding" and "Content-Encoding" methods. This would allow interoperable C/R systems to use MIME and SMTP methods for cases like challenges to multiple senders, custom PKI, burden of storage on sender, etc. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 14:13:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04368 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54ICsF07417 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:12:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54ICrB07414 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:12:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04354; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nciw-0006PM-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:10:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nciw-0006PJ-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:10:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54I83B07269; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:08:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54I73B06423 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:07:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04100 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NcdI-0006KS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:05:08 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NcdH-0006Jo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:05:07 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A57D2AB0096; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:07:57 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:11:03 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMqBNpiigMX4RuVSZW68M1W42PHhAAvR/pA From: "Peter Kay" To: "John Fenley" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h54I73B06424 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:06:29 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In addition to what you have below, the C/R internetworking must define how C/R systems respond to each other's challenges. For example: 1. The Titan Key (TTK) sends out an email to someone the first time. The recipient's email is automatically added to TTK whitelist. 2. The recipient does not have me on their whitelist, so they send a challenge. But because their "FROM" address in the MAIL command is NOT the sender's address, TTK doesn't have that address on its whitelist so it sends a challenge to the challenge. End result is that the TTK user never sees the recipients challenge and the recipient never gets the email. So what ends up happening is the recipient has to go through their quarantine folder and pull out the email. The TTK user never gets the email because the challenge was killed in the MAIL command. So, to me, C/R systems need to at least use their end-users email address on the MAIL FROM address in the mail command. Assuming that a CR system dynamically adds a recipient email address to the whitelist, the process would then go as follows: 1. The sender Y (SY) using CR system A (CRA) sends an email to recipient Z (RZ) not currently on CRA's whitelist. 2. CRA dynamically adds RZ's email to CRA's whitelist. 3. RZ's CR system B (CRB) receives SY'z email 4. CRB sends a challenge to SY. The MAIL FROM address is RZ's email address. 5. CRA receives CRB's challenge and since RZ's email address has been already added to CRA's whitelist, the challenge passes through to SY. 6. SY responds to the challenge. 7. Mutual authorization to correspond is completed and email may flow. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Fenley [mailto:pontifier@hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:21 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework > > > Here is an informal C/R interworking system I have been > working on lately: > > I see 3 different types of C/R systems with varying levels of > verification based on what kind of information is wanted by > the challenger: > > 1. Address verification. Challenge gets delivered therefore > address is valid. 2. Address + Message verification. Asks if > system really sent the message being challenged. 3. Address + > Message + Human verification. Requires human response to challenge. > > These differences in motivations should be taken into account > when working to ensure interoperability because these types > of challenges will take different forms, and must be > responded to differently. > > 1 is just an address probe. RFC 821 describes a VRFY command > for this purpose (does it work?). If this can be used I > recommend it's use for address verification to all makers of > C/R systems. > > 2 could be done in SMTP time, but might be better done at the > MUA. This type > of challenge could be answered automatically at the MUA. This > type of check > would be useful to do to all messages, even ones for whom the > address is > already whitelisted as it essentially authenticates the > sender, and spoofing > a sending address becomes difficult or impossible, though there are > tradeoffs, and another form of authentication would probably > be better. This type of check would also eliminate the > possibility that a spammer would > specify a random address to be challenged (see original > message section) in > the hopes that the random party would answer the challenge, > and help a spam > message pass through another person's system. > The challenged party should be able to say "no, I didn't send that". > > 3 must be done at the MUA. Hashcash and other proof of "x" > checks would require human agreement, and would fall under 3. > > A person should only see challenge type #3 after the message > passes type 2 verification. This eliminates any advantage a > spammer would receive from faking a C/R subject to an auto > answering C/R system, yet allows challenges that require a > human response to reach the inbox. > > > > =============================================== > The original message: =============================================== > The original message can have an optional machine/human > readable top body line requesting that the body either not be > included in challenges, or that it should be included. This > line could be placed automatically. > > This line can also specify an address that challenges should > be sent to. This will allow anyone to use an auto-answering > services to automatically > answer the > challenges (you send a cc: or Bcc: to the company so they can > check #2 type challenges), and allow all challenges received > at an address to be deleted without processing (except type 3 > challenges requiring human response that > come from the service, and could have a user defined subject line). > > C/R systems should detect and respect this by never including > the message body if that request is made (even if a message > checksum is not available), > and > by sending challenges to only the address listed here (to > clear up confusion about which address to use). > > =============================================== > The Challenge > =============================================== > I see the following as the minimum necessary to ensure that > no loops form: > > Standard Subject deformation such as the addition of "CR#:" > for all C/R system challenges where # corresponds to > challenge types 1,2, or 3 in the list above. The rest of the > subject should be unchanged (may truncate overflowing > subject lines). > > The top of the body should contain instructions for a human > reading the message, and outlining the mail handling > procedure of the challenger in the event of no response. > > The date of the original message should be included. > > A unique random identifying number to be repeated back in the > response so > that the challenger can know that this is truly a response to > the challenge > sent, and not a faked response sent at the same time as the > message. This > also proves that the sender can answer challenges sent to the > challenged > address. > > A message specific identifier (such as an MD5 checksum of the > body) so that the challenged system can determine which > message was challenged... the entire body could be used, or > the entire full message with headers could be included. > > =============================================== > The Response to a "CR#:" message > =============================================== > Once you have the right information, proper handling of the > message is necessary. > > Messages with "CR(any #):" Should never be challenged. > Messages with "CR(1-3)" should be responded to in either the > affirmative or negative.(automatically if possible) The > system should be smart enough to realize when it doesn't know > if it sent a message or not. Messages with "CR(4-6)" should > be Processed, and the original message(s) should be delivered > or deleted based on the response content, and the local policy. > > Responses to a challenge should retain the subject from the > challenge with one change. The number in the "CR#:" tag > should be increased by 3 to show that this is a response to a > challenge. thus numbers 1,2, and 3 are challenges. And 4,5, > and 6 are responses. This should eliminate the possibility of > loops. If you receive a "CR7:","CR8:", or "CR9:" then a > broken Challenge response system on the other end would be > detected. A "CR#:CR#:" Tag would indicate a broken C/R system as well. > > > The identifying number should be included in the response. > > And most importantly an answer to the challenge should be > included (yes, no, > or unknown, plus Hashcash work/human response) if one is > required by the > type of challenge being answered. > > ============================== > analysis: > ============================== > > These guidelines for C/R seem to me to solve a lot of the > problems that C/R > would have normally: > > Relative simplicity of implementation guidelines. > > Provides support for varying goals of C/R systems. > > Automatic responses to some challenges are possible, and would not > inconvenience the original sender at all. > > Human responses are possible in old equipment, or C/R by proxy (for > automatic response) could be used.. > > Does not rely on any outside protocols in order to operate as > it requires > only 2 way message transfer (does not require SMTP tweaks) > > Header information not required. > > Falsity in any part of the transaction is detected with C/R > systems using > this method (spammers cannot use it to help reach users > unless they are > stable enough to correctly answer the challenges themselves, > and are thus > easier to track down). > > Loops are virtually impossible between C/R systems using > these methods. > > Address to challenge confusion can be cleared up. > > Local policy regarding un-cleared mail is up to the user. > > Is open ended enough that it could be used as an unlimited > proof of work system (semi-equal access to all regardless of > language/handicap/education/Etc...except CPU power) > > If Choicelist is used, then mailing lists would never be > challenged, and > wanted automatic mailings would pass through this system with > no problems. > > Adoption population should rise rapidly as an auto-responding > MUA will, most > likely, be demanded by many senders after they receive only a few > challenges. Such an MUA would probably be able to ?play both > roles? and > challenge mail as well, thus creating a feedback loop of > increased adoption > pressure and C/R volume. > > > ============= > Problems I see: > ============= > widespread adoption would make it difficult or impossible to > send or receive > truly anonymous email. > > This does nothing to combat spammer evolution. In fact > spammers may speed up > their evolution unless this evolution issue is addressed. I > feel confident > that ?ADV:? whitelisting could provide a solution to this, > and would end the > escalating arms race against spammers. > > ===================================================== > Asrg Requirements from ?draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-xx? > addresses here ===================================================== > > 2.1 > I have not yet searched the RFCs for support or > contradictions 2.1.1 MD5 and hashcash are accepted and > established systems, and I believe that > randomly generated number comparisons are routinely used to > prove that > message delivery has succeeded > 2.2 > The burden falls mostly on the recipient for storage until > delivery, though > the sender would carry a small Checksum storage burden as > well. The burden > imposed on the challenged party is there by design in C/R > systems. 2.2.1 Avoidance of the manual burden of answering > challenges might spur adoption > of auto-responding MUAs, and act as a support to adoption. > 2.3 > The proposed system would be mostly transparent for end users if an > auto-responding MUA is used. Mail providers would be > pressured to implement > this system to remain competitive. This is a symptom of C/R > itself, and > interoperability concerns would be decreased by a standard > framework to > follow. > 2.3.1 > Not sure what atypical situations I should be evaluating, but > in multiple > party messages, each recipient would independently challenge > the message, > and the original sender would need to respond to each > challenge individually 2.4 Only minor changes to most > existing C/R systems would be needed, and > deployment of new C/R systems is already progressing without > needing a push. 2.4.1 C/R already exists, this method would > just allow interoperability between > them. > 2.5 > C/R would be interoperable under this method. > 2.5.1 > Old mailers are supported through Proxy Challenging to a > service address. C/R is already independent of SMTP, yet > compatible with it. I believe this method can be equally > implemented on all platforms. 2.6 The subset of spam C/R > will be most effective against will be anonymous mail > from unknown parties that cannot respond to the challenges. > 2.6.1 I feel this interworking method is contiguous. 2.7 If > C/R cannot be made workable then I see little hope for email. > 2.7.1 Possible abuses are mentioned along with the solutions > I have proposed. 2.8 Auto answering of minor challenges > should be trivial, and would provide a > minimal barrier to legitimate message delivery. > 2.8.1 > this method does not limit content types, though it may introduce > significant delays in the delivery of email. Those delays are > a part of C/R > and the auto response capability mentioned minimizes that > delay in most > cases. > 2.9 > This proposal is not a C/R system, but a standard method that > will allow C/R > systems to increase their interoperability > 2.9.1 > This has attempted to provide a solution that any party can > use, and find > effective. > 2.10 > Legal aspects were not considered. > 2.10.1 > Patent law would be the only possible deterrent for this > method, but that is > being discussed separately > 2.11 > This method is a simple as I could make it. > 2.11.1 > People can easily understand C/R on a basic level. > 2.12 > C/r is already being implemented. > 2.12.1 > I believe these have all been addressed > 2.13 > This method may be effective on SMS and other messaging > platforms. 2.13.1 Specific implementations for other > platforms have not been evaluated yet, > but seem possible to me. > 2.14 > Anonymity is reduced by this system, though through use of a > third part > challenge answering service anonymity may be preserved > through masking > challenge delivery through them. > 2.14.1 > Challenge forgery is addressed, and I feel solved. > Accountability consists of punishment of senders by possible message > deletion if a challenge is not received, and perhaps > elevated status if a > response is received. > > Preserving anonymity, and allowing sender tracing seem like > contradictory > goals to me, and I can't think of any system that could do > both well. ==================================================== > > > John Fenley > > _________________________________________________________________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 14:15:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04438 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54IEe107492 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:14:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IEeB07489 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:14:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04421; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nckf-0006Pv-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:12:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nckf-0006Ps-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:12:45 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54ID3B07451; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:13:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54ICvB07431 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:12:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04359 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ncj0-0006PS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from 000-229-267.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.134.160] helo=68.27.134.160 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nciu-0006P6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:11:00 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140206.00bb6b48@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "John Fenley" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:11:53 -0400 At 12:21 PM 6/3/2003 -0600, John Fenley wrote: >Here is an informal C/R interworking system I have been working on lately: > >I see 3 different types of C/R systems with varying levels of >verification based on what kind of information is wanted by the challenger: > >1. Address verification. Challenge gets delivered therefore address is >valid. >2. Address + Message verification. Asks if system really sent the message >being challenged. >3. Address + Message + Human verification. Requires human response to >challenge. > >These differences in motivations should be taken into account when working >to ensure interoperability because these types of challenges will take >different forms, and must be responded to differently. Eric Dean's draft primarily concentrates on the first two items. >1 is just an address probe. RFC 821 describes a VRFY command for this >purpose (does it work?). If this can be used I recommend it's use for >address verification to all makers of C/R systems. RFC 2505, section 2.11: "Both SMTP VRFY and EXPN provide means for a potential spammer to test whether the addresses on his list are valid (VRFY) and even get more addresses (EXPN). Therefore, the MTA SHOULD control who is is allowed to issue these commands. This may be "on/off" or it may use access lists similar to those mentioned previously." The main problem with VRFY is that it allows the spammer to verify addresses. >2 could be done in SMTP time, but might be better done at the MUA. This >type of challenge could be answered automatically at the MUA. This type of >check would be useful to do to all messages, even ones for whom the >address is already whitelisted as it essentially authenticates the sender, >and spoofing a sending address becomes difficult or impossible, though >there are tradeoffs, and another form of authentication would probably be >better. >This type of check would also eliminate the possibility that a spammer >would specify a random address to be challenged (see original message >section) in the hopes that the random party would answer the challenge, >and help a spam message pass through another person's system. >The challenged party should be able to say "no, I didn't send that". This would require the sender to keep track of all sent email. This raises some privacy issues and generally increases the burden on the receiver. >3 must be done at the MUA. Hashcash and other proof of "x" checks would >require human agreement, and would fall under 3. > >A person should only see challenge type #3 after the message passes type 2 >verification. >This eliminates any advantage a spammer would receive from >faking a C/R subject to an auto answering C/R system, yet allows challenges >that require a human response to reach the inbox. > >[..] >=============================================== >The Challenge >=============================================== >I see the following as the minimum necessary to ensure that no loops form: > >Standard Subject deformation such as the addition of "CR#:" for all C/R >system challenges where # corresponds to challenge types 1,2, or 3 in the >list above. >The rest of the subject should be unchanged (may truncate overflowing >subject lines). What stops spammers for using CR subjects in order to bypass C/R systems? >The top of the body should contain instructions for a human reading the >message, and outlining the mail handling procedure of the challenger in the >event of no response. > >The date of the original message should be included. > >A unique random identifying number to be repeated back in the response so >that the challenger can know that this is truly a response to the >challenge sent, and not a faked response sent at the same time as the >message. This also proves that the sender can answer challenges sent to >the challenged address. > >A message specific identifier (such as an MD5 checksum of the body) so that >the challenged system can determine which message was challenged... the >entire body could be used, or the entire full message with headers could be >included. Checksums are better, anything else would have privacy implications. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 14:36:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05367 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:36:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54IZtc08322 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:35:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IZtB08319 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:35:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05359; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nd5E-0006bb-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:34:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nd5D-0006bY-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:33:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IX6B08226; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:33:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IWUB08197 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:32:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05259 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nd1v-0006ak-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:30:35 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nd1u-0006aH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:30:34 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AB752ED0096; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:33:25 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:36:31 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <7eac0708-9741-421b-905a-204d94c0cab0> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMqbC/U5uSL5+hxSm6+27aZ6X6GaQAWMrdQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Dave Crocker" , "Barry Shein" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h54IWUB08198 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:31:57 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > My personal favorite definition, these days, is > > Unsolicited Bulk Mail (UBE) > This is good, short and simple. > > And we need to define bulk properly. This will be difficult. > If I send an unsolicited message to 2 people, does it > qualify? What about 10 people, 100, 1000? Why? Why not? > To me, BULK email is email which is programmatically sent out to > 1 person. Programmatically here means by means of automated systems, i.e. mailmerge processes. So, yes, if I do a copy/paste of my entire contact list, paste them in my email, and announce my new company, I'm doing bulk email. > So we then need to define unsolicited properly. We must make > sure to permit me to make contact with someone for the first > time. Not all cold calls are bad; in fact they are essential > to many desirable aspects of social intercourse. We need to > make sure that we define "permission" properly -- as a kind > of opposite to unsolicited -- and so we can then enjoy > wonderful debates about details such as double opt-in. And so > on. Still, I think the question of "unsolicited" is > well-enough understood to make it possible to get community > rough consensus on a technical definition that the > engineering community can work with. > A definition of UNSOLICITED, I believe, is the core of the issue and the problem, primarily because it will force us to address the eye of the storm: is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? Is email considered unsolicited until the recipient decides it is solicited? Or is it considered solicited until the recipient decides it is unsolicited? I think this is the big question, ladies. And I would say that today's spam problem is because SMTP was born in an environment where email was inherently trusted. SMTP protocol is AWASH with trusted processes. Not the least of which is clear text transmission. But because the Internet went commercial, suddenly SMTP found itself in an environment where email (IMHO) is inherently untrusted. And spam is what you get when you put a protocol meant for scholars and scientists in the hands of capitalists. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 14:56:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06551 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54IuJO10541 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:56:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IuJB10538 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:56:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06532; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdOx-0006vQ-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:54:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdOx-0006vN-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:54:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54Is6B10344; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:54:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IrRB10289 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:53:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06392 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdMB-0006sg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:51:31 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdMB-0006sd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:51:31 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h54IrGw2007164 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21BD@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21BD@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:53:14 -0400 At 10:16 AM -0700 6/4/03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip imposed structure on a stream of electrons, yielding: >> >>The student sends the same query for assistance to each of >> these people. >> BC> Oh, you mean survey spam? >> >> No, this is nothing like a survey. A survey is a formal, structured >> measurement instrument. > >Actually that raises a point here, we want to allow reasonable surveys (for >some definition of reasonable) Yes. I have a sneaking suspicion that your definition of reasonableness is quite different from mine. I would define a reasonable survey as one where the respondent has verifiably asked to be sent surveys from the surveying party. The perfect example of this problem is Harris. They used to spam to conduct their polls. They claim (and indeed seem) to have ceased using spam, even though the result is that they are now polling people who choose to be polled. >but you want to ban push polls where there is >no actual interest in soliciting opinion, the purpose is to spread >information or a political position "Do you believe that the tax cut that >gives 99% of its benefits to rich Texas oilmen is fair or unfairly benefits >the rich" > >There is no way for the end recipient to know the difference. Which points out again that it is a bad idea to try to view spam as a content issue instead of a simple consent issue. >> I'm talking about someone trying to chat up some folk about a topic of >> interest. > >I think it is reasonable to poll larger groups, provided that there number >of surveys sent is no more than is necessary for reasonable statistical >accuracy and the subject is something the recipients are at least likely to >not object to. I feel no guilt for having damaged the academic careers of at least 2 onetime PhD candidates clueless enough to have tried that bit of stupidity. >I don't see why we should stop classes of high school kids doing Internet >surveys for class projects. But there is no reason each high school should >poll the entire net. I like the simple reason that high school students should not be taught to use intrinsically flawed research methods which have built-in validity problems and steal resources from every potential respondent, even the ones who do not want to participate. [...]> >Also a jury of spam monitors could give a verdict on the conduct of an >alleged spam sender and revoke a credential on the basis of that definition. > > >[ObDisclosure, VeriSign Inc. has pending patent claims that may cover >certain implementations of such a scheme] >[ObFact, Filing a patent claim is empirically the only way to prevent the >USPTO granting a patent to another party, so don't get tweaked yet] My disclosure: I do no business with Verisign and regularly recommend that others do no business with Verisign. Care to guess why? The concept of Verisign running any sort of anti-spam system is mind-boggling. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:04:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07177 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54J4Zw11082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:04:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54J4ZB11079 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:04:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07095; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdWx-00070x-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:02:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdWw-00070u-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:02:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54J34B11016; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:03:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54J2FB10966 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:02:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06821 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdUh-0006yz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:00:19 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdUg-0006yw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:00:18 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h54J26Yn006499 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:02:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306041902.h54J26Yn006499@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030604085907.03460c90@mail.1s.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:02:06 -0600 (MDT) > From: Art Pollard > ... > > Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for > > the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. > > I think it would be important to note that it is AUTOMATED. > ... If a someone hired 100,000 people to manually type copies and individually send 100 substantially identical messages/day, would that be spam? In other words, I bet your statement is wrong and that what you really care about is "bulk." In practice "AUTOMATED" and "bulk" go together in spam, but it's the "bulk" that matters and how the stuff is produced. This is related to the fact that "commercial" or "advertising" is not a good characterization of "spam," although in practice almost all of the mail that you would label as "spam" is flogging something. We could try to define "burglary" more precisely than being where you don't have permission for a malicious purpose, but that would be a big mistake. We could define "burglarly tools" as all screw drivers and crowbars or never as screw drivers or crowbars, but either choice would be bad. You can literally be convicted in the U.S. of "possessions of burglary tools" for having a screw driver in your car and without being convicted or even charged with burglary (my wife served on a jury in such a case). On balance, this fuzziness is a good albeit imperfect thing. That "burglary" is fuzzy does not hinder technical defenses against it including guards and alarms. Defining spam as "unsolicited bulk email" without getting legalistic about the words (e.g. is SMS email? what about x.400 or UUCP mail?) does not stop us from producing effective if imperfect spam defenses. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:15:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08376 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54JExX12497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:14:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JExB12494 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:14:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08325; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ndh6-00078F-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:13:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ndh5-00078C-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:13:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JDJB12373; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:13:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JBvB12309 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:11:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07979 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nde9-00076a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:10:05 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nde8-00076X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:10:05 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h54JBs8g009875 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:11:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306041911.h54JBs8g009875@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140206.00bb6b48@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:11:54 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > The main problem with VRFY is that it allows the spammer to verify addresses. > ... This is a minor issue, but pleast note that the main problem with VRFY is that many and perhaps most SMTP servers have it turned off. No one with the faintest familiarity with how spam, spam filters, and even general STMP installation testing today uses VRFY. Instead we all do what the spammers do many 10's of millions and perhaps billions of times every day. Instead of sending the sequence of SMTP commands HELO VRFY we send HELO MAIL From RCPT To The result of the second sequence is not perfect (e.g with Yahoo), but it is far more likely to work than the first. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:35:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09381 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54JZIg13567 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:35:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JZIB13564 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:35:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09356; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ne0k-0007ME-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:33:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ne0j-0007MB-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:33:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JS7B13213; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:28:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JRWB13189 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:27:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09050 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdtE-0007GV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:25:40 -0400 Received: from cs.sfu.ca ([142.58.111.1] ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NdtD-0007GS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:25:39 -0400 Received: from regula (regula [199.60.2.110]) by cs.sfu.ca (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h54JRRpi026416 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob Cameron To: asrg@ietf.org User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306041227.27506.cameron@cs.sfu.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:27:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In tackling the definition of spam, perhaps it would be useful to have a somewhat different view in which spam is considered a symptom of a deeper problem. Here is a statement I have been using to motivate e-mail research work here at SFU. "Current e-mail standards create an imbalance between senders and recipients, providing senders with the power to capture the attention of any recipient they so desire, while giving recipients little control over what appears in their inbox. The imbalance becomes most severe when the sender is a computer program sending out bulk unsolicited e-mail (spam)." The notion of sender/recipient imbalance then becomes a theory that at once helps explain spam and also predicts that the problem of spam may be mitigated by addressing the imbalance. The two general ways of doing this are: (a) reducing the power of senders and (b) increasing the power of recipients. Most anti-spam proposals can be characterized as addressing one or both of these objectives, typically at the MTA or network infrastructure level for approach (a) or at the MUA level for approach (b). Focussing on the sender/recipient imbalance may help avoid value judgments/arguments as to whether a particular instance of annoying e-mail is or is not spam. As many have pointed out, there is a large grey area. Care must be taken to avoid moving into this grey area in deploying MTA or network-level approaches that either classify messages as spam or senders as spammers. But if these classification approaches are augmented by other means that address the sender/recipient imbalance, then there may be no need to move into the grey area at the infrastructure levels. Personally, I am interested in approach (b): empowering recipients through increased automation at the MUA. I see challenge-response systems as a first step in this automation, but consider that there may be other benefits to MUA-level automation that ought also to be explored. For example, one scenario in our work is that C/R systems can be leveraged to perform other useful functions such as automated change-of-address negotiation (whitelist/address book updating). Nevertheless, it is very important that MTA and network-based approaches also be developed. In the short term, MUA-based approaches will not help with network traffic reduction. Over the long term, we will continue to need asynchronous text-based messaging. But we will need to ensure that the great power of automation that senders may employ in generating messages is matched by a corresponding power of recipients to automate responses when and as appropriate. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 15:55:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10233 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54Jsoj15415 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:54:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JsoB15412 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:54:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10223; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NeJd-0007ei-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:52:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NeJd-0007ef-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:52:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54Jr8B15297; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:53:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54JqHB15252 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:52:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10196 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NeHB-0007dr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:50:25 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NeHA-0007dl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:50:24 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [66.77.69.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 1784813B5F; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id ADCB6A17008C; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:51:39 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140020.00ba4f80@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:54:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > At 09:43 AM 6/3/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > >Trying to come up with the right place to shim in the CRI > control headers. > >It seems we can do the following: > > > >1) Use SMTP headers: beyond the deployment issues, CRI is not > limited to the > >envelope and there are often many mail relays in the path that > could remove > >such headers. We do not want to restrict mail clients from implementing > >CRI. > > As I mentioned before, SMTP would be a good solution only for those cases > when two C/R systems are inter-operable and there is a need for > the sender > to take the burden of storing the message. Otherwise, plain email > should be > used so us humans can read the challenge message. Split MX incoming from SMTP outgoing relay may or may not pose an issue. Some mail servers allow for P2P clustering..like with SMTP VRFY, LDAP, or a common database. A CRI message could be queried against other servers..but may be annoying. > >2) Use RFC 2822 headers: we could possibly introduce a new field > altogether > >or use an optional field as spec'd in 3.6.8 > > Using RFC 2822 headers would limit the amount of information since each > header is limited to 998 characters (as per section 2.1.1). Uh..998 is probably enough...and they really prefer 78 chars anyway > Vernon Schryver > (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/ms > g05168.html) > has already pointed out that MIME headers can store more > information which > would be a factor in case some kind of PKI signatures are used.. ok > Additionally, some C/R systems might want to combine several challenges > into one message and that would be awkward to do with RFC 2822 > headers. On > the other hand, if such headers are used for single sender-single > receiver > C/R headers are the simplest solution. 2822 just seems more broad than MIME...I'm not leaning either way..it seems that most people like to stick flotsam and jetsam in the MIME headers...but I am not sure how the registration spec'd in 2048 will respond to us > >Thoughts? > > Some of the purposes of MIME as stated in RFC 2045 and look perfectly > suited for us: > > "(2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual > message bodies, > (3) multi-part message bodies, and" In 2048, we should fit in one of two areas: 1) External Body Access 2) Transfer Encoding The more I read 2048, the more I ask myself "why the hell am I considering MIME private values?" > > In our case we can utilize MIME to create a multi-part message with one > part containing a human-readable challenge and other parts containing > machine-readable challenges (i.e. non-textual message bodies). The > advantages to using MIME is that: > 1. We can include both human and machine requests in one messages, NOT > limited in size. > 2. We can include PKI signatures, hashcash codes, etc. > 3. We can include multiple challenges and responses in one message. Let's hope that IANA also sees our approach this way > I think that all three approaches are good and they fulfill different > needs. I think all three should be used and we will allow C/R systems > to negotiate between themselves: > 1. The basic CRI protocol should use RFC 2822 headers, with single > challenge per each sender. This allows for easier use with existing email > systems and non interoperable C/R systems. Such messages will have the > regular challenge message for humans in the message body with additional > information in the headers. Using custom MIME types can make > email software > choke and leave the information unreadable to a human being. ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an RFC 2822 registration process that I am aware of. > 2. IF a C/R system is used by the sender, then it can identify itself > either via ESMTP or an RFC 2822 header. Then the two systems can > negotiate > on the use of RFC 2822 headers, MIME headers or plain SMTP. This would be > similar to the way HTTP clients negotiate with "Accept-Encoding" and > "Content-Encoding" methods. This would allow interoperable C/R systems to > use MIME and SMTP methods for cases like challenges to multiple senders, > custom PKI, burden of storage on sender, etc. ok _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 17:05:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12482 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54L5Ja20734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:05:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54L5JB20731 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:05:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12454; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfPq-0000N9-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:03:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfPp-0000N6-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:03:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54L2hB20640; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:02:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54L17B20533 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:01:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12321 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:01:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfLm-0000Ky-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:59:14 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfLl-0000Ko-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:59:13 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h54L12pT029650 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:01:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306042101.h54L12pT029650@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:01:02 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > ... > A definition of UNSOLICITED, I believe, is the core of the issue and the > problem, primarily because it will force us to address the eye of the > storm: > > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? > > Is email considered unsolicited until the recipient decides it is > solicited? Or is it considered solicited until the recipient decides it > is unsolicited? > > I think this is the big question, ladies. I trust you are not supporting the parts of those definitions that are from the equivelants of thieves trying to warp the definition of burglary to give them permission to be be anywhere and so always innocent. Spammers and organizations that would send a lot of spam if it did not have its current stench define solicited as "until you do a confirmed opt-out, and then only for a few months." The rest of us who could qualify as reasonable persons in court know that "unsolicited" means just that. If you didn't ask for it, then it's unsolicited. If you did ask for it, then it's solicited. A stream of solicited mail becomes unsolicited after the change is communicated to the sender. That certainly does not imply that you can unsubscribe from a mailing list by screaming "SPAM!" as some people do. It also does not imply that Dell Computers or Verisign can assume that despite your clear instructions, you want to know about important offers. (Dell or Verisign are merely the first two outfits came to mind as having sent significant bulk mail advertising in my direction despite being explicitly told not to.) > ... > But because the Internet went commercial, suddenly SMTP found itself in > an environment where email (IMHO) is inherently untrusted. And spam is > what you get when you put a protocol meant for scholars and scientists > in the hands of capitalists. There are big differences between capitalists who in principle can understand enlightened self-interest and the tragedy of the commons and parasites that claim a right to steal from their sales targets. Note that the Internet was in the hands of capitalists for almost as many years before email spam became a problem as it has been since spam became noticable. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 17:09:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12811 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54L8mv21755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:08:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54L8mB21752 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:08:48 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12796; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54L65B20786; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:06:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54L51B20699 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:05:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12414 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfPX-0000Mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:03:08 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfPX-0000MW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:03:07 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AF35561007A; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:05:57 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:09:03 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <96e12b26-161b-4ff3-bcae-14cd07107606> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance. X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance. Thread-Index: AcMq1bc5XvPZFcHJSpm9hZ7OeE/9swABwZRA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Rob Cameron" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h54L52B20700 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:04:28 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think you're right on. I believe that sooner or later, some type of C/R will be the way email gets passed around. One may argue (and have a good case) to say that today's C/R are clunky and don't work well, but ultimately they empower the recipient in a way that addresses the imbalance. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Cameron [mailto:cameron@cs.sfu.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:27 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance. > > > In tackling the definition of spam, perhaps it would be > useful to have a somewhat different view in which spam is considered > a symptom of a deeper problem. > > Here is a statement I have been using to motivate e-mail > research work here at SFU. > > "Current e-mail standards create an imbalance between senders > and recipients, providing senders with the power to capture the > attention of any recipient they so desire, while giving > recipients little control over what appears in their inbox. > The imbalance becomes > most severe when the sender is a computer program sending out > bulk unsolicited e-mail (spam)." > > The notion of sender/recipient imbalance then becomes a > theory that at once helps explain spam and also predicts that > the problem of spam may be mitigated by addressing the > imbalance. The two general ways of doing this are: (a) > reducing the power of > senders and (b) increasing the power of recipients. Most > anti-spam proposals can be characterized as addressing one > or both of these objectives, typically at the MTA or network > infrastructure level for approach (a) or at the MUA level for > approach (b). > > Focussing on the sender/recipient imbalance may help avoid > value judgments/arguments as to whether a particular instance > of annoying e-mail is or is not spam. As many have pointed > out, there is a large grey area. Care must be taken to avoid > moving into this grey area in deploying MTA or network-level > approaches that either classify messages as spam or senders > as spammers. But if these classification approaches are > augmented by other means that address the sender/recipient > imbalance, then there may be no need to move into the grey > area at the infrastructure levels. > > Personally, I am interested in approach (b): empowering recipients > through increased automation at the MUA. I see challenge-response > systems as a first step in this automation, but consider that > there may > be other benefits to MUA-level automation that ought also to > be explored. For example, one scenario in our work is that > C/R systems can be leveraged to perform other useful > functions such as automated change-of-address negotiation > (whitelist/address book updating). > > Nevertheless, it is very important that MTA and network-based > approaches also be developed. In the short term, MUA-based > approaches will not help with network traffic reduction. > > Over the long term, we will continue to need asynchronous > text-based messaging. But we will need to ensure that the > great power of automation that senders may employ in > generating messages is matched by a corresponding power of > recipients to automate responses when and as appropriate. > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 17:15:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13017 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54LF7v22036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54LF7B22033 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13001; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfZJ-0000Vm-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:13:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfZI-0000Vj-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:13:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54LD7B21955; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54LCIB21884 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:12:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12931 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfWa-0000Ui-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:10:24 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfWZ-0000Ud-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:10:23 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [66.77.69.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 93AD713B8A; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A021522400D0; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:09:53 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "John Fenley" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140206.00bb6b48@std5.imagineis.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:12:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > RFC 2505, section 2.11: > > "Both SMTP VRFY and EXPN provide means for a potential spammer to test > whether the addresses on his list are valid (VRFY) and even get more > addresses (EXPN). Therefore, the MTA SHOULD control who is is allowed to > issue these commands. This may be "on/off" or it may use access lists > similar to those mentioned previously." > > The main problem with VRFY is that it allows the spammer to > verify addresses. > I rarely see SMTP VRFY attacks..it's just as easy to do RCPT TO than SMTP VRFY...in fact, spammers don't care if the address is valid anyway since they often uses bogus sender addresses. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 17:23:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13149 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54LNEB22371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:23:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54LNDB22368 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:23:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13133; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nfh9-0000YN-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:21:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nfh9-0000YK-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:21:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54LL5B22264; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:21:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54LKUB22224 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:20:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13088 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfeW-0000XC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:18:36 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NfeV-0000X9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:18:35 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h54LKOca003860 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:20:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306042120.h54LKOca003860@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:20:24 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Eric Dean" > ... > Let's hope that IANA also sees our approach this way If you're worried about the IANA, you shouldn't even consider an official message header. > ... > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an RFC 2822 > registration process that I am aware of. See draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-06.txt Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 18:18:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15969 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54MI1725955 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:18:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54MI0B25952 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15954; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NgY9-0000uJ-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:16:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NgY8-0000uG-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:16:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54MGGB25874; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:16:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54MDHB25775 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:13:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15606 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:13:10 -0400 (EDT) From: kent@songbird.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NgTY-0000tU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:11:20 -0400 Received: from owl.icann.org ([192.0.35.114] helo=localhost.localdomain) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NgTX-0000tQ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:11:19 -0400 Received: (from kent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54MCbJ05911 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:12:37 -0700 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Message-ID: <20030604221237.GL3234@owl.songbird.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21BB@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21BB@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:12:37 -0700 On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 08:55:53AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [...] > Fixing on the 'bulk' aspect is only solving the problem from the ISP's point > of view. From the users point of view the fact that the email was sent to > ten or a million other people is irrelevant. The volume of spam (whatever the definition) is its primary irritation (I wouldn't care about spam if I only got one nigerian scam a year), and bulk mailing is the primary cause of that volume. Hence, "bulk" is indeed quite relevant to the individual. -- Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be Manager of Technical Operations, ICANN lonesome." crispin@icann.org,kent@songbird.com -- Mark Twain p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 19:14:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16853 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54NE1s29339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:14:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NE1B29336 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:14:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16839; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhQQ-00015X-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:12:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhQP-00015U-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:12:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NBBB29243; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:11:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NABB29219 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:10:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16806 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhMd-00014r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:08:15 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhMc-00014g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:08:14 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AC874780086; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 13:11:03 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:14:10 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <293517d0-54bf-4134-b1c0-d1528ef697db> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMq4/3DkuSXxpe/RwuF+KBulh0E0wACevKA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h54NACB29220 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:09:35 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > I trust you are not supporting the parts of those definitions > that are from the equivelants of thieves trying to warp the > definition of burglary to give them permission to be be > anywhere and so always innocent. Spammers and organizations > that would send a lot of spam if it did not have its current > stench define solicited as "until you do a confirmed opt-out, > and then only for a few months." > No. I'm not supporting that. I probably used the wrong wording here. Let me restate: is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? Is all email considered unsolicited until the recipient says otherwise? > > There are big differences between capitalists who in > principle can understand enlightened self-interest and the > tragedy of the commons and parasites that claim a right to > steal from their sales targets. > While that may be true, the fact is that Dell and Verisign have still sent you email that you consider unsolicited. So I feel that my earlier statement of capitalism + SMTP = spam problem. > Note that the Internet was in the hands of capitalists for > almost as many years before email spam became a problem as it > has been since spam became noticable. > > Are you sure about that? When was commercial Internet use OK? When did Canter & Siegel send the first spam? Maybe you mean "spam became unbearable" instead of "noticable". 1 spam = noticable. 100 = unbearable. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 19:15:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16909 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54NF2j29404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NF2B29401 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16879; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhRO-000166-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:13:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhRN-000163-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:13:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NE3B29370; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:14:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NDsB29323 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:13:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16836 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhQJ-00015Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:12:03 -0400 Received: from 000-234-350.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.163] helo=68.27.154.163) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhQG-00015I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:12:01 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604191331.00b99d10@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:13:32 -0400 At 01:11 PM 6/4/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > The main problem with VRFY is that it allows the spammer to verify > addresses. > > ... > >This is a minor issue, but pleast note that the main problem with VRFY >is that many and perhaps most SMTP servers have it turned off. No >one with the faintest familiarity with how spam, spam filters, and >even general STMP installation testing today uses VRFY. Instead we >all do what the spammers do many 10's of millions and perhaps billions >of times every day. Instead of sending the sequence of SMTP commands > > HELO > VRFY > >we send > > HELO > MAIL From > RCPT To > >The result of the second sequence is not perfect (e.g with Yahoo), >but it is far more likely to work than the first. However, if we are defining an SMTP process for CRI protocols, can we use the VRFY command as a part of an ESMTP extension? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 19:15:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16931 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54NFGP29423 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NFGB29420 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16901; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhRc-00016E-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:13:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhRb-00016B-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:13:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NE2B29354; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:14:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NDrB29319 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:13:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16833 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhQH-00015L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:12:01 -0400 Received: from 000-234-350.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.163] helo=68.27.154.163) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhQF-00015H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:12:00 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604191319.00b99bd0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:13:20 -0400 At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > ... > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an RFC 2822 > > registration process that I am aware of. > >See draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-06.txt Currently, isn't it enough just to define a header in an RFC? This has been done for a number of headers. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 19:27:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17261 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54NQbW29886 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:26:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NQbB29883 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:26:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17231; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nhcb-0001AG-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:24:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nhca-0001AC-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:24:44 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NPHB29776; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:25:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NN6B29651 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17110 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhZC-00018P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:21:14 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NhZB-00018M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:21:13 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h54NN1n6012881 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:23:01 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23969; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:23:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16094.32596.876410.281706@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> References: <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> <200306040851.38620.dja2003@hotpop.com> <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:23:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which is best characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I suspect the problem would become much more manageable even if not completely solved. That's one PR problem with all this, the more we focus on the message (email whose contents I don't want) the more we're opening ourselves to accusations of just being anti-commercial zealots. Who can argue with something like: ALTHOUGH spam covers a wider set of unwanted email it is certainly (bulk) email which uses illegal and/or ethically questionable methods to ensure its delivery including but not limited to: a) Exploitation of open relays and proxies for transmission. b) Forged and often purposely misleading header information. c) Creation and use of computer viruses for transmission. d) Encoding of the message and header information with the intent to deceive filters and/or recipients. e) Inclusion of phony removal and/or affiliation information. f) Highly inappropriate demography (e.g. sending explicit material to children, making no attempt to prevent that.) g) Misleading and deceitful subject and other presentation lines designed to trick someone into opening the mail. h) Obscuring any possibility of identification of the sender and/or beneficiaries of the mail. etc. I PURPOSELY DIDN'T CRAFT THAT to be finely-honed language so don't start objecting that you see holes in some of the wording w/o further clarification, of course, not my point. I just wanted to keep it short and easy to consider, designed for knowledgeable colleagues, not hostile skeptics. MY POINT IS, a list like that is easy for legislators, the media, etc to get behind and difficult for a so-called white-hat bulk mailer to quibble with in contrast to definitions which focus on the repetitious, unsolicited, promotional nature of spam. The latter make spam sound like a lot of other annoying-but-tolerated advertising. Obviously it'd be important to stress that this is just a first step trying to deal with the worst of the problem and not intended to be exhaustive. Finally, and frankly, I think if we could just accomplish that much we'd put the majority of the real dirtbags out of business, and then can tune further. They can't tolerate accountability of any sort. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 20:01:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18396 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5501H032070 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:01:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5501HB32067 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:01:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18386; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NiA8-0001Or-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:59:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NiA7-0001Oo-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:59:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NxhB31919; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:59:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54NwIB31862 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:58:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18076 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ni7F-0001LH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:56:25 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ni7D-0001LD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:56:24 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h54NwDp3004952 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:58:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306042358.h54NwDp3004952@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:58:13 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > ... > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? Trust is gone, just as it evaporated from voice telephones a long time ago. > Is all email considered unsolicited until the recipient says otherwise? Some kinds of mail has implicit consent. Almost everyone who has a public mailbox welcomes or at least consents to non-bulk, inoffensive mail. There is a good analogy between the calls you implicitly consent to receive at a "published" (i.e. not "unlisted") telephone number and the mail you implicitly consent to receive at an email address that you have published in directories or divulged to individuals or organizations. The telephone calls that bother people are similar to mail spam. > ... > > Note that the Internet was in the hands of capitalists for > > almost as many years before email spam became a problem as it > > has been since spam became noticable. > > Are you sure about that? When was commercial Internet use OK? When did > Canter & Siegel send the first spam? Maybe you mean "spam became > unbearable" instead of "noticable". 1 spam = noticable. 100 = > unbearable. Canter&Siegal sent netnews or usenet spam long before email spam became a problem. Plenty of commercial use of the Internet was OK even in the 1980's, as many of us worked for commercial outfits at the time can attest. That was true not only of the baldly commercial parts of the net but also on the NSFNET provided you could offer some kind of reasonable excuse that whatever you were doing was "in support of research or education," even if you were making a profit at it or only selling goods or services to other commercial outfits. I connected a UNIX vendor to the net via CSNET using a leased line to facilities run by another computer vendor in 1986. http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~wwwbtb/book/chap1/net_hist.html says there were 1,000,000 hosts in 1992. I doubt they were all in the hands of socialists or whatever are other than capitalists. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 20:04:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18505 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5503X232194 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:03:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5503XB32191 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:03:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18482; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NiCK-0001Ph-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:01:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NiCJ-0001Pe-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:01:39 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55023B32121; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:02:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5501JB32083 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:01:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18394 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NiAA-0001Ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:59:26 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NiA9-0001Ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:59:25 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5501FoD005896 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:01:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306050001.h5501FoD005896@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604191331.00b99d10@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:01:15 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > However, if we are defining an SMTP process for CRI protocols, can we use > the VRFY command as a part of an ESMTP extension? What about deployment and adoption rates? Do you want it to work even with MTAs not running your new protocol? In other words, do you want it to work only in theory or to also have a glimmer of a hope of working in the real Internet within the next 20 years? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 20:38:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19684 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h550bpx03000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:37:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h550bpB02997 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:37:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19672; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NijV-0001e6-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:35:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NijV-0001e2-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:35:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h550ZJB02065; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:35:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h550XXB01959 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:33:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19531 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NifL-0001d2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:31:39 -0400 Received: from 000-234-350.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.154.163] helo=68.27.154.163) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NifJ-0001cs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:31:38 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604202758.00ba5d08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <16094.32596.876410.281706@world.std.com> References: <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> <200306040851.38620.dja2003@hotpop.com> <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:29:21 -0400 At 07:23 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which is best >characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I suspect the problem >would become much more manageable even if not completely solved. >[..] Would you nevertheless agree that UBE that is not sent using "llegal and/or ethically questionable methods" would still be considered spam? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 21:06:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20542 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5516Wx04186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:06:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5516WB04183 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:06:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20497; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjBG-0001qV-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:04:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjBG-0001qS-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:04:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55152B04155; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:05:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55145B04120 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:04:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20476 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: kent@songbird.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nj8t-0001pz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:02:11 -0400 Received: from owl.icann.org ([192.0.35.114] helo=localhost.localdomain) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nj8s-0001pX-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:02:10 -0400 Received: (from kent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5513VV06679; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:03:31 -0700 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Message-ID: <20030605010331.GN3234@owl.songbird.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21C9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D21C9@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:03:31 -0700 On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 03:57:28PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The problem I have is the fact I get 300 spams a day. The fact that those > spams are also sent to 10 million or so others is not relevant to me. My > problem is the fact that *I* am getting the messages. I would have exactly > the same problem if I was the only person who got that quantity of messages. Reality is that you get that quantity of messages because of the fact of bulk mailings, and hence bulk mailings are relevant -- at least to the extent that reality is relevant. :-) To put it another way, if bulk mailing was eliminated, your spam problem, along with everyone else's, would be eliminated. Kent -- Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be Manager of Technical Operations, ICANN lonesome." crispin@icann.org,kent@songbird.com -- Mark Twain p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 21:07:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20633 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55174a04292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:07:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55174B04289 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:07:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20558; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjBm-0001qw-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:05:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjBl-0001qs-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:05:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55138B04076; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:03:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5512DB04047 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:02:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20447 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nj75-0001p8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:00:19 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nj74-0001oq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:00:18 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A6CD41008C; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:03:09 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:06:16 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <9dbf749e-e19b-4123-929f-9808d291fde3> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMq+znBrN8R3qupQw27xIp8xrV2QQAAshrw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5512DB04049 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:01:41 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > ... > > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? > > Trust is gone, just as it evaporated from voice telephones a > long time ago. > > So I'll take it you're saying email is inherently untrusted. > > Is all email considered unsolicited until the recipient says > > otherwise? > > Some kinds of mail has implicit consent. Almost everyone who > has a public mailbox welcomes or at least consents to > non-bulk, inoffensive mail. There is a good analogy between > the calls you implicitly consent to receive at a "published" > (i.e. not "unlisted") telephone number and the mail you > implicitly consent to receive at an email address that you > have published in directories or divulged to individuals or > organizations. > > The telephone calls that bother people are similar to mail spam. > > See, but that's where we have to draw the line. We have to have a clear, black line that says this is spam and this is not. And it can't be based on content. And it can't be based on "it bothers me". So if we're saying, "if you have a public mailbox, you are implying consent", then so be it (I would not agree w/ that but that's not the point). We can't say "I'm public, so I'm impling consent for any email that doesn't bother me". _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 21:18:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21174 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:18:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h551IH205492 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:18:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551IHB05489 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:18:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21155; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjMd-0001yv-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:16:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjMd-0001ys-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:16:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551GBB05420; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:16:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551FAB05391 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:15:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21105 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjJc-0001y3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:13:16 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjJb-0001xt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:13:15 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A9D7680088; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:16:07 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:19:13 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <4e40c83e-f4df-41ad-9630-5b613f3c027f> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMq/DgZrz/IYehISm6TGlylDZxDswAAjg1g From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h551FAB05392 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:14:38 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think its reasonable to think deployment would be rapid. CR is a relatively new "protocol" if you will. We as a SMTP CR vendor would comply. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:01 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > However, if we are defining an SMTP process for CRI > protocols, can we > > use > > the VRFY command as a part of an ESMTP extension? > > What about deployment and adoption rates? Do you want it to > work even with MTAs not running your new protocol? In other > words, do you want it to work only in theory or to also have > a glimmer of a hope of working in the real Internet within > the next 20 years? > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 21:36:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21471 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h551Zsb06060 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:35:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551ZsB06057 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:35:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21427; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njdf-000238-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:33:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njdf-000235-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:33:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551Y8B05962; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:34:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551X4B05925 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:33:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21347 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njaw-00021r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:31:10 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njav-00021o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:31:09 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h551WxFE000724 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:32:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306050132.h551WxFE000724@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:32:59 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > > > ... > > > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? > > > > Trust is gone, just as it evaporated from voice telephones a > > long time ago. > > So I'll take it you're saying email is inherently untrusted. I guess it was a mistake to dodge your use of "trust" before. What do you mean by "trusted"? Trusted to be, say, or do what? Email was never trusted to be more than an unsigned inter-office memo. If you mean "generally trusted to not be spam," then yes, that trust has been gone for years. The justification of this group is to recover that trust. > ... > > The telephone calls that bother people are similar to mail spam. > > See, but that's where we have to draw the line. We have to have a clear, > black line that says this is spam and this is not. And it can't be based > on content. And it can't be based on "it bothers me". The definition of spam can't be "it bothers me," but it also cannot and must not be defined by "clear black line." That's been my point about burglary and many other crimes. "Insider trading" is in the news today. It is another example of a crime that if you tried to deliniate it with a clear black line, either it or all stock trading would disappear. > So if we're saying, "if you have a public mailbox, you are implying > consent", then so be it (I would not agree w/ that but that's not the > point). It is nonsense to have a public mailbox that does not accept any mail from strangers. If you don't want at least some unsolicited mail, you should block the slot in your mailbox and save yourself grief. > We can't say "I'm public, so I'm impling consent for any email > that doesn't bother me". That's as true as the analogous statements about telephone harassment and computer network security. The clear black lines that computers can see, such as burglar alarm motion sensors, do and should differ from the fuzzy lines humans use. The difficulty in defining spam is that many people insist on using the email equivalents of motion sensors to not only detect spam but to define it. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 21:58:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21922 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h551w1207636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551w1B07633 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21902; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njz4-00028A-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:56:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njz3-000287-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:56:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551uJB07496; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:56:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551lsB07264 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:47:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21727 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjpH-000260-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:45:59 -0400 Received: from 75.209.219.209.transedge.com ([209.219.209.75] helo=ckmso2.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjpG-00025v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:45:58 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h551lHun011081 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:47:18 -0400 Received: from att.com (unknown[135.210.120.223](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20030605014549gw100ok4roe> (Authid: tony); Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:45:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3EDEA101.9070502@att.com> From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604191319.00b99bd0@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604191319.00b99bd0@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:46:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> > ... >> > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an >> RFC 2822 >> > registration process that I am aware of. >> >> See draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-06.txt > > Currently, isn't it enough just to define a header in an RFC? This has > been done for a number of headers. Yes, that's all that should be needed: write an internet-draft defining the new header and get it published as an RFC. If msghdr-registry gets published as an RFC before this new I-D gets published as an RFC, then the new I-D will also need to have an appropriate IANA Considerations section that directs IANA to add the new header to the header registry. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 21:58:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21937 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h551w8s07661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551w8B07658 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21911; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjzB-00028G-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:56:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NjzB-00028D-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:56:13 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551uPB07525; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:56:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h551rlB07413 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:53:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21804 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njuy-00027B-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:51:52 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Njux-000277-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:51:51 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A2E3C00088; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:54:43 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:57:49 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <72463431-0bed-4fe5-ad65-d68cee588943> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMrBGMYxipDqvNfQU6FO2SC0IyQGAAASB5Q From: "Peter Kay" To: , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h551rlB07414 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:53:14 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > -----Original Message----- > From: kent@songbird.com [mailto:kent@songbird.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:04 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 03:57:28PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > The problem I have is the fact I get 300 spams a day. The fact that > > those spams are also sent to 10 million or so others is not > relevant > > to me. My problem is the fact that *I* am getting the messages. I > > would have exactly the same problem if I was the only > person who got > > that quantity of messages. > > Reality is that you get that quantity of messages because of > the fact of bulk mailings, and hence bulk mailings are > relevant -- at least to the extent that reality is relevant. :-) > > To put it another way, if bulk mailing was eliminated, your > spam problem, along with everyone else's, would be eliminated. > > Kent > > -- > Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be > Manager of Technical Operations, ICANN lonesome." > crispin@icann.org,kent@songbird.com -- Mark Twain > p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 22:15:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22463 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:15:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552Ejk09357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:14:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552EjB09354 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:14:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22452; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkFG-0002FG-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:12:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkFF-0002FD-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:12:49 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552D2B09325; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552CTB09292 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:12:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22414 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkD3-0002Er-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:10:33 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkD3-0002Eo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:10:33 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (binkylou@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h552CM2j008851; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:12:23 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01414; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:12:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16094.42758.280666.549251@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604202758.00ba5d08@std5.imagineis.com> References: <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> <200306040851.38620.dja2003@hotpop.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030604202758.00ba5d08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:12:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 4, 2003 at 20:29 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > At 07:23 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > > >At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which is best > >characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I suspect the problem > >would become much more manageable even if not completely solved. > >[..] > > Would you nevertheless agree that UBE that is not sent using "llegal and/or > ethically questionable methods" would still be considered spam? Of course, this is just the worst and most urgent subset, in my opinion. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 22:16:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22541 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:16:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552Fpm09425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:15:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552FpB09422 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:15:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22504; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkGJ-0002G7-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:13:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkGJ-0002G4-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:13:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55296B09118; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:09:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5528MB09081 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:08:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22253 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nk95-0002CE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:06:27 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nk94-0002Bk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:06:27 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A64DDA0088; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:09:17 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:12:25 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMq91OHDBfZvuaKTxyAiH8Vm3qq2wAEBJmg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Barry Shein" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5528MB09082 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:07:50 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit While I agree w/ you, I think its best to keep the definition short, black and white. How's this: Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a primarily automated process. Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the sender. Sender can mean an individual or an organization. A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given sender if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email from the sender. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:23 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > > At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which > is best characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I > suspect the problem would become much more manageable even if > not completely solved. > > That's one PR problem with all this, the more we focus on the > message (email whose contents I don't want) the more we're > opening ourselves to accusations of just being > anti-commercial zealots. > > Who can argue with something like: > > > > ALTHOUGH spam covers a wider set of unwanted email it is certainly > (bulk) email which uses illegal and/or ethically questionable > methods to ensure its delivery including but not limited to: > > a) Exploitation of open relays and proxies for transmission. > > b) Forged and often purposely misleading header information. > > c) Creation and use of computer viruses for transmission. > > d) Encoding of the message and header information with the intent > to deceive filters and/or recipients. > > e) Inclusion of phony removal and/or affiliation information. > > f) Highly inappropriate demography (e.g. sending explicit material > to children, making no attempt to prevent that.) > > g) Misleading and deceitful subject and other presentation > lines designed to trick someone into opening the mail. > > h) Obscuring any possibility of identification of the sender > and/or beneficiaries of the mail. > > etc. > > I PURPOSELY DIDN'T CRAFT THAT to be finely-honed language so > don't start objecting that you see holes in some of the > wording w/o further clarification, of course, not my point. > > I just wanted to keep it short and easy to consider, designed > for knowledgeable colleagues, not hostile skeptics. > > MY POINT IS, a list like that is easy for legislators, the > media, etc to get behind and difficult for a so-called > white-hat bulk mailer to quibble with in contrast to > definitions which focus on the repetitious, unsolicited, > promotional nature of spam. The latter make spam sound like a > lot of other annoying-but-tolerated advertising. > > Obviously it'd be important to stress that this is just a > first step trying to deal with the worst of the problem and > not intended to be exhaustive. > > Finally, and frankly, I think if we could just accomplish > that much we'd put the majority of the real dirtbags out of > business, and then can tune further. They can't tolerate > accountability of any sort. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: > 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > The World | Public Access Internet | Since > 1989 *oo* > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 22:45:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23180 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552inw11353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552inB11350 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23148; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkiL-0002R0-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:42:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkiL-0002Qx-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:42:53 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552eMB11113; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:40:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552dZB11060 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:39:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22972 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkdH-0002O4-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:37:39 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([199.172.62.105] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkdH-0002O1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:37:39 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h552dTVq014652; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:39:29 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14832; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:39:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16094.44384.458521.584391@world.std.com> To: "Peter Kay" Cc: , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:39:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN define that > UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing" as spamming. I realize I won't get consensus on that here. But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up with the money for resources for every blitz by every fortune 1,000,000 company who decides to unload on their (let's say for argument's sake) legitimate mailing list hourly. Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes 10,000 msgs you frequent flyers! Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide! NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to send their daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW! And don't tell me subscriber fees are supposed to cover this. There's almost total disconnect as marketeers get savvier about exploiting this medium. That's like wishing your property taxes covered the postage for junk paper mail. What a stupid idea that would be! Or that there should be no postage paid by magazines because you subscribed to them. This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is essential to civilization! Replace "tax money" with "ISP's resources" and you've got my point of view. This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's just a matter of time. What we're doing here might postpone doom for a while by freeing up resources for blessed floods of bull****, and those are mostly my (and kindred) resources being freed so I have an interest in that happening. But in my opinion not too far in the future the current e-mail architecture will just collapse. One reason why is because the day you stop or minimize spam the so-called "legitimate" marketers from those fortune 1,000,000 companies will realize that their message will now get through and will no longer be confused with those of total con-men and scams. And those marketeers actually have money to spend. P&G spends $3B a year on advertising, etc. Need I go on? They're just waiting on the sidelines for you to build a nice, level road for them to drive on, for free. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 22:47:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23278 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552kmx11478 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:46:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552kmB11475 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:46:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23238; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkkG-0002SX-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:44:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkkF-0002SU-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:44:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552gNB11225; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:42:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552fmB11176 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:41:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23025 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:41:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkfQ-0002PM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:39:52 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkfP-0002P1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:39:51 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AE2212A0088; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:42:42 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:45:48 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <72fecd35-53f5-4e23-b1e1-b70cc6f2c277> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMrCMuGSqREBsv5QkyrEiFkjxG5gQAArHng From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h552fmB11177 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:41:14 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > From: "Peter Kay" > > > > > ... > > > > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted? > > > > > > Trust is gone, just as it evaporated from voice telephones a > > > long time ago. > > > > So I'll take it you're saying email is inherently untrusted. > > I guess it was a mistake to dodge your use of "trust" before. > What do you mean by "trusted"? Trusted to be, say, or do > what? Email was never trusted to be more than an unsigned > inter-office memo. If you mean "generally trusted to not be > spam," then yes, that trust has been gone for years. The > justification of this group is to recover that trust. > > Good point. "Trusted" here means "trust that email is not unsolicited" > > ... > > > The telephone calls that bother people are similar to mail spam. > > > > See, but that's where we have to draw the line. We have to have a > > clear, black line that says this is spam and this is not. > And it can't > > be based on content. And it can't be based on "it bothers me". > > The definition of spam can't be "it bothers me," but it also > cannot and must not be defined by "clear black line." That's > been my point about burglary and many other crimes. "Insider > trading" is in the news today. It is another example of a > crime that if you tried to deliniate it with a clear black > line, either it or all stock trading would disappear. > > I disagree. If you don't have a clear black line, you'll have spam. Draw the line. Take the heat, but draw the line. Let some people get pissed off. Too bad. > > So if we're saying, "if you have a public mailbox, you are implying > > consent", then so be it (I would not agree w/ that but > that's not the > > point). > > It is nonsense to have a public mailbox that does not accept > any mail from strangers. If you don't want at least some > unsolicited mail, you should block the slot in your mailbox > and save yourself grief. > There's nothing wrong w/ unsolicited email. But there's everything wrong w/ unsolicited BULK email. > > We can't say "I'm public, so I'm impling consent for any > > email that doesn't bother me". > > That's as true as the analogous statements about telephone > harassment and computer network security. > > The clear black lines that computers can see, such as burglar > alarm motion sensors, do and should differ from the fuzzy > lines humans use. > > The difficulty in defining spam is that many people insist on > using the email equivalents of motion sensors to not only > detect spam but to define it. > That's only true if we define spam according to fuzzy logic related to content and intent. If we make the definition black and white (i.e. motion sensor) then we can contain, measure, and solve the problem. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 22:47:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23301 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552lBU11504 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:47:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552lBB11501 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:47:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23256; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nkkd-0002Se-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:45:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nkkc-0002Sb-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:45:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552j2B11389; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:45:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552i0B11325 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23120 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkhY-0002Ql-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:42:04 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkhX-0002QT-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:42:03 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AEA71320088; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:44:55 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:48:01 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMrC7g3dcyHlY97Rh6iR7OxPopHbAAALKkg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h552i0B11326 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:43:26 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What you say may be true but its way out of scope here. If your subscribers sign up for email solicitations and that overloads your infrastructure, you've definitely got some cost recovery to deal with but we don't have a UBE problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:39 PM > To: Peter Kay > Cc: kent@songbird.com; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) > wrote: > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. > But we CAN define that > UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk > mailing" as spamming. > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. > > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up > with the money for resources for every blitz by every fortune > 1,000,000 company who decides to unload on their (let's say > for argument's sake) legitimate mailing list hourly. > > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes > 10,000 msgs you frequent flyers! > > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide! > > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to > send their daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW! > > And don't tell me subscriber fees are supposed to cover this. > There's almost total disconnect as marketeers get savvier > about exploiting this medium. > > That's like wishing your property taxes covered the postage > for junk paper mail. What a stupid idea that would be! Or > that there should be no postage paid by magazines because you > subscribed to them. > > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, > the OTHER guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of > tax money is essential to civilization! > > Replace "tax money" with "ISP's resources" and you've got my > point of view. > > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. > It's just a matter of time. > > What we're doing here might postpone doom for a while by > freeing up resources for blessed floods of bull****, and > those are mostly my (and > kindred) resources being freed so I have an interest in that > happening. But in my opinion not too far in the future the > current e-mail architecture will just collapse. > > One reason why is because the day you stop or minimize spam > the so-called "legitimate" marketers from those fortune > 1,000,000 companies will realize that their message will now > get through and will no longer be confused with those of > total con-men and scams. > > And those marketeers actually have money to spend. P&G spends > $3B a year on advertising, etc. Need I go on? > > They're just waiting on the sidelines for you to build a > nice, level road for them to drive on, for free. > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: > 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > The World | Public Access Internet | Since > 1989 *oo* > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 22:54:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23457 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552rsa11767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:53:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552rrB11764 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:53:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23434; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:53:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nkr7-0002Ur-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:51:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nkr6-0002Uo-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:51:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552q8B11666; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:52:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552p7B11646 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:51:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23374 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkoR-0002U7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:49:11 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkoP-0002TU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:49:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604224953.00b41848@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:49:54 -0400 At 06:01 PM 6/4/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > However, if we are defining an SMTP process for CRI protocols, can we use > > the VRFY command as a part of an ESMTP extension? > >What about deployment and adoption rates? Do you want it to work >even with MTAs not running your new protocol? >In other words, do you want it to work only in theory or to also have a >glimmer of a hope of working in the real Internet within the next 20 years? As I pointed out before in a posting to Eric Dean, my vision is a multi-stage CRI protocol. The basic protocol would use RFC 2822 headers and human-readable email, which would be compatible with current MTAs. As C/R systems become more common, they can negotiate to use the other parts of the protocol such as an ESMTP extension or MIME fields. An extension mechanism would be in place where the protocol can be extended to support things like PKI, hash cash, etc. The VRFY command would be part of that ESMTP extension which will be used by C/R systems that want to, and not used by existing MTAs. Existing MTAs will start off by supporting the basic protocol or if they want the other parts. Additionally, deployment and adoption rates is something that should be considered in more detail (this would be something that Eric Brunner can help us with). According to D. J. Berstein's SMTP statistics (http://cr.yp.to/surveys/smtpsoftware6.txt), the following breakdown of major MTAs was present on the Internet in 2001 (out of 958): 401/958 41.85% UNIX Sendmail 176/958 18.37% Windows Microsoft Exchange or IIS SMTP 167/958 17.43% UNIX qmail 57/958 5.9% Windows Ipswitch IMail These four accounted for about 84% of all MTAs with the other MTAs were 1% or less. Of these, qmail and sendmail account for 59.28% of all MTAs, with the Windows ones accounting for the other 24.27%. IF a CRI protocol is implemented and both qmail and sendmail support it, that would mean that a sizable majority of the Internet would support it. If Microsoft jumps in, that would increase the effect. The question remains, taking the impact of qmail and sendmail, and the propagation rates for admins installing the newest versions, how long would deployment take? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 23:05:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23774 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5534nW12177 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:04:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5534nB12174 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:04:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23764; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl1g-0002Yo-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:02:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl1g-0002Yl-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5533HB12137; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:03:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5532aB12111 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:02:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23707 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkzY-0002YV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:00:40 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkzX-0002YS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:00:39 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:01:19 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:01:00 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32AED.2AC33DC0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Peter Kay , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:31 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > At 03:30 PM 6/3/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > >[..] > >Here's mine: > > > >Spam is transmission of mass email without the prior explicit > >authorization of the recipient. > >[..] > > From the charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html): > > "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across > different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the > problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual > or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for > certain communication and have the architecture support those desires." Yes, that is the issue. The ability 'to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and that the architecture support those desires'. To me that is a sort of 'policy enforcement mechanism,' the over-arching question/s is/are: - can such a policy mechanism be architected? - how is such a 'policy mechanism' described in technical terms, e.g. that can be expressed within an 'architecture'? - what are the essential components of the policy decision? - what are the essential technical aspects of the 'policy decision engine'? - what is the placement of the 'policy decision engine' - core vs. edge? - what are the user definable aspects for instantiating policy decisions? - what are the measured attributes for determining policy conformance or violation? IMHO the rest are implementation specific decisions, I have left some of the research areas out, that is intended. I have included some that are personal preferences, that is also intended. I feel that this can be cast as an engineering problem, but it currently does not have a consensus driver for all of the involved players, essentially the target community for compliance review are 'rouge players' and demonstrate adaptability designed to be contrary to the policy decisions which we are attempting to fix upon their activity. That is the significant issue. There is perhaps a additional track here concerning the 'fuzziness' approach that Vernon mentioned in the decision processes for 'making a determination'. Such an approach requires a collaborative approach for components in the 'decision engine'. No one part can do it all, IMHO. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 23:08:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23884 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5538BX13156 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:08:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5538BB13153 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:08:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23863; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl4x-0002a1-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:06:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl4w-0002Zy-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:06:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55372B12286; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:07:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5536LB12217 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:06:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23798 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl3B-0002Z9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:04:25 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([199.172.62.105] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl3A-0002Z6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:04:24 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (binkylou@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5536FVq024456; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:06:15 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03304; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:06:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16094.45990.961199.178716@world.std.com> To: "Peter Kay" Cc: "Barry Shein" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:06:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 4, 2003 at 16:07 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > While I agree w/ you, I think its best to keep the definition short, > black and white. > > How's this: > > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email How's this: Crime is the unauthorized appropriation or harm of another's person or property. Short, black and white...one wonders why we need courts and reams of legal texts... > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a > primarily automated process. > > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not > implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the sender. > > Sender can mean an individual or an organization. > > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given sender > if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the > recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email from > the sender. > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:23 PM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > > > > > > At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which > > is best characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I > > suspect the problem would become much more manageable even if > > not completely solved. > > > > That's one PR problem with all this, the more we focus on the > > message (email whose contents I don't want) the more we're > > opening ourselves to accusations of just being > > anti-commercial zealots. > > > > Who can argue with something like: > > > > > > > > ALTHOUGH spam covers a wider set of unwanted email it is certainly > > (bulk) email which uses illegal and/or ethically questionable > > methods to ensure its delivery including but not limited to: > > > > a) Exploitation of open relays and proxies for transmission. > > > > b) Forged and often purposely misleading header information. > > > > c) Creation and use of computer viruses for transmission. > > > > d) Encoding of the message and header information with the intent > > to deceive filters and/or recipients. > > > > e) Inclusion of phony removal and/or affiliation information. > > > > f) Highly inappropriate demography (e.g. sending explicit material > > to children, making no attempt to prevent that.) > > > > g) Misleading and deceitful subject and other presentation > > lines designed to trick someone into opening the mail. > > > > h) Obscuring any possibility of identification of the sender > > and/or beneficiaries of the mail. > > > > etc. > > > > I PURPOSELY DIDN'T CRAFT THAT to be finely-honed language so > > don't start objecting that you see holes in some of the > > wording w/o further clarification, of course, not my point. > > > > I just wanted to keep it short and easy to consider, designed > > for knowledgeable colleagues, not hostile skeptics. > > > > MY POINT IS, a list like that is easy for legislators, the > > media, etc to get behind and difficult for a so-called > > white-hat bulk mailer to quibble with in contrast to > > definitions which focus on the repetitious, unsolicited, > > promotional nature of spam. The latter make spam sound like a > > lot of other annoying-but-tolerated advertising. > > > > Obviously it'd be important to stress that this is just a > > first step trying to deal with the worst of the problem and > > not intended to be exhaustive. > > > > Finally, and frankly, I think if we could just accomplish > > that much we'd put the majority of the real dirtbags out of > > business, and then can tune further. They can't tolerate > > accountability of any sort. > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: > > 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > > The World | Public Access Internet | Since > > 1989 *oo* > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 23:12:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23987 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h553CJ513323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:12:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h553CJB13320 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:12:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23962; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl91-0002bK-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:10:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl90-0002bH-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:10:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h553BAB13286; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:11:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h553AQB13250 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:10:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23939 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl78-0002af-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:08:30 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nl77-0002ac-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:08:29 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h553AIcn021482; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:10:18 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06013; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:10:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16094.46234.482660.158257@world.std.com> To: "Peter Kay" Cc: "Barry Shein" , , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:10:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok, and if you get overloaded with spam then it's only because you're too poor and unimportant to have a secretary sort through your mail for you. Anyhow, you ignored the part about defining what a legitimate solicitation is, is buying an airline ticket sufficient? etc. -b On June 4, 2003 at 16:43 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > What you say may be true but its way out of scope here. If your > subscribers sign up for email solicitations and that overloads your > infrastructure, you've definitely got some cost recovery to deal with > but we don't have a UBE problem. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:39 PM > > To: Peter Kay > > Cc: kent@songbird.com; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > > > > > > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) > > wrote: > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. > > But we CAN define that > UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk > > mailing" as spamming. > > > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. > > > > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up > > with the money for resources for every blitz by every fortune > > 1,000,000 company who decides to unload on their (let's say > > for argument's sake) legitimate mailing list hourly. > > > > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes > > 10,000 msgs you frequent flyers! > > > > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide! > > > > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to > > send their daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW! > > > > And don't tell me subscriber fees are supposed to cover this. > > There's almost total disconnect as marketeers get savvier > > about exploiting this medium. > > > > That's like wishing your property taxes covered the postage > > for junk paper mail. What a stupid idea that would be! Or > > that there should be no postage paid by magazines because you > > subscribed to them. > > > > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, > > the OTHER guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of > > tax money is essential to civilization! > > > > Replace "tax money" with "ISP's resources" and you've got my > > point of view. > > > > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. > > It's just a matter of time. > > > > What we're doing here might postpone doom for a while by > > freeing up resources for blessed floods of bull****, and > > those are mostly my (and > > kindred) resources being freed so I have an interest in that > > happening. But in my opinion not too far in the future the > > current e-mail architecture will just collapse. > > > > One reason why is because the day you stop or minimize spam > > the so-called "legitimate" marketers from those fortune > > 1,000,000 companies will realize that their message will now > > get through and will no longer be confused with those of > > total con-men and scams. > > > > And those marketeers actually have money to spend. P&G spends > > $3B a year on advertising, etc. Need I go on? > > > > They're just waiting on the sidelines for you to build a > > nice, level road for them to drive on, for free. > > > > > > -- > > -Barry Shein > > > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: > > 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > > The World | Public Access Internet | Since > > 1989 *oo* > > > > > > > > -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 4 23:34:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24395 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h553YJB14030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:34:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h553YJB14027 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:34:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24376; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NlUJ-0002hC-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:32:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NlUI-0002h9-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:32:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h553X8B13952; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:33:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h553WWB13913 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:32:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24323 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NlSZ-0002fp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:30:39 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NlSZ-0002ff-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:30:39 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:30:10 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:30:11 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32AF1.3E0955F0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Eric Dean'" , Yakov Shafranovich , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:15:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an RFC 2822 > registration process that I am aware of. IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the introduction of an new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?' I hope I am not belaboring the point but at this stage if we focus more on the research aspect of the problems the set of solutions that are viable should/may become more apparent. So instead of attempting to prove the solution perhaps at this stage it is better to 'test' the approach to a solution in theory and provide provable research conclusions that support the goals of the approach. Just a thought. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 00:54:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25471 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h554rug19117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:53:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h554ruB19114 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:53:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25462; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NmjK-0002uy-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:52:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NmjJ-0002uv-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:52:01 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h554qOB19013; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:52:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h554ikB18781 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:44:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25340 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 00:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NmaS-0002sz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:42:52 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NmaR-0002sw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:42:51 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h554ic0i004489 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306050444.h554ic0i004489@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604222958.00b9b4d8@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:44:38 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > These four accounted for about 84% of all MTAs with the other MTAs were 1% > or less. Of these, qmail and sendmail account for 59.28% of all MTAs, with > the Windows ones accounting for the other 24.27%. > > IF a CRI protocol is implemented and both qmail and sendmail support it, > that would mean that a sizable majority of the Internet would support it. > ... There is a very large difference between the the current versions of a package supporting something and installations of the package supporting it. It is not only that I suspect most SMTP servers are more than a year behind in current releases, but that having facilities available in the code is not at all the same as turning them on. A good case study is SMTP-TLS. Sendmail and other STMP implementations have supported SMTP-TLS for a year or two. Turning on SMTP-TLS in sendmail is easy, one you figure it out the OpenSSL documentation. It is entirely upward compatable and a Good Thing(tm) for a bunch of reasons. However, as far as I can tell the vast majority of the Internet does not support SMTP-TLS and practically none of the minority that does has done the trivial additional work to make available their certs. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that I see almost as many signs of SMTP-TLS in my logs from spammers as from legitimate SMTP clients. In truth I see little of either, but some of both. Before you say that everyone cares about spam but not about mail confidentiality and security and so your protocol would be different, please say why ISPs that would have to turn on your protocol have not done what's necessary to find and crush spammers. Why did Earthlink reportedly spend months and millions of dollars of technician and inside lawyer time chasing the Buffalo Spammer while the outside lawyer pin him in days? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 01:11:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25766 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h555BKr20673 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:11:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h555BKB20670 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:11:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25749; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nn09-0002zS-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:09:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nn09-0002zP-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:09:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h555A8B20640; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:10:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55595B20593 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:09:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25697 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nmxz-0002ye-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:07:11 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nmxy-0002yb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 01:07:10 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55591a9009386 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:09:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306050509.h55591a9009386@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 23:09:01 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > ... > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email > > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a > primarily automated process. > > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not > implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the sender. > > Sender can mean an individual or an organization. > > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given sender > if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the > recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email from > the sender. I'm sorry, but I find that last paragraph very wrong. Silence in the face of spam is never consent to more spam! Consent to unsolicited bulk email must always be explicit and precede first message. It does not matter how the consent is expressed, whether by a proper mailing list subscription including confirmation or some other message. It does matter that spam is spam even it claims "There is no need to unsubscribe since this is a one-time mailing." (That phrase was once very common in spam. It's more common now ) Other bits of that definition are objectionable because they are distracting and irrelevant. It does not matter whether an advertisement is sent in batch of 1000 or if the energetic and desperate salesperson addressed and "targeted" each copy manually and so doesn't manage to send more than 5000 before running out of time to "make quota." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 02:57:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09088 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h556ufu05782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:56:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h556ueB05779 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:56:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09074; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Noe3-0003dv-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:54:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Noe3-0003ds-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:54:43 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h556sOB05717; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:54:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h556rsB05702 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:53:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09056 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NobN-0003dM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:51:57 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NobM-0003dJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:51:56 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A9386120086; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:54:48 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 06:57:55 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <34ffe1c9-6097-4986-b7bf-c7a2d1a8278a> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMrEAWuDvcSZDHnQnSRNMaFitfRjwAHwfHw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h556rwB05703 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:53:20 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I didn't define the explicit side as that's pretty easy to define. It's the implicit definition that I felt was difficult. > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:10 PM > To: Peter Kay > Cc: Barry Shein; kent@songbird.com; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > Ok, and if you get overloaded with spam then it's only because you're > too poor and unimportant to have a secretary sort through your mail > for you. > > Anyhow, you ignored the part about defining what a legitimate > solicitation is, is buying an airline ticket sufficient? etc. > > -b > > On June 4, 2003 at 16:43 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > > What you say may be true but its way out of scope here. If your > > subscribers sign up for email solicitations and that overloads your > > infrastructure, you've definitely got some cost recovery to deal with > > but we don't have a UBE problem. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:39 PM > > > To: Peter Kay > > > Cc: kent@songbird.com; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > > > > > > > > > > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) > > > wrote: > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. > > > But we CAN define that > UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > > > > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk > > > mailing" as spamming. > > > > > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. > > > > > > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up > > > with the money for resources for every blitz by every fortune > > > 1,000,000 company who decides to unload on their (let's say > > > for argument's sake) legitimate mailing list hourly. > > > > > > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes > > > 10,000 msgs you frequent flyers! > > > > > > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide! > > > > > > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to > > > send their daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW! > > > > > > And don't tell me subscriber fees are supposed to cover this. > > > There's almost total disconnect as marketeers get savvier > > > about exploiting this medium. > > > > > > That's like wishing your property taxes covered the postage > > > for junk paper mail. What a stupid idea that would be! Or > > > that there should be no postage paid by magazines because you > > > subscribed to them. > > > > > > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, > > > the OTHER guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of > > > tax money is essential to civilization! > > > > > > Replace "tax money" with "ISP's resources" and you've got my > > > point of view. > > > > > > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. > > > It's just a matter of time. > > > > > > What we're doing here might postpone doom for a while by > > > freeing up resources for blessed floods of bull****, and > > > those are mostly my (and > > > kindred) resources being freed so I have an interest in that > > > happening. But in my opinion not too far in the future the > > > current e-mail architecture will just collapse. > > > > > > One reason why is because the day you stop or minimize spam > > > the so-called "legitimate" marketers from those fortune > > > 1,000,000 companies will realize that their message will now > > > get through and will no longer be confused with those of > > > total con-men and scams. > > > > > > And those marketeers actually have money to spend. P&G spends > > > $3B a year on advertising, etc. Need I go on? > > > > > > They're just waiting on the sidelines for you to build a > > > nice, level road for them to drive on, for free. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -Barry Shein > > > > > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | > > > http://www.TheWorld.com > > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: > > > 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > > > The World | Public Access Internet | Since > > > 1989 *oo* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 03:06:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09302 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5576Ya06281 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:06:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5576YB06278 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:06:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09294; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nond-0003gz-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 03:04:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nonc-0003gw-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 03:04:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55755B06196; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:05:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5574aB06153 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:04:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA09266 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 03:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nolj-0003gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 03:02:39 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Noli-0003gJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 03:02:38 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id ABBA53A0084; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:05:30 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:08:37 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Thread-Index: AcMrJxnOOVmL9Lh+SNGt/Y5GUHAuugACNRkw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5574aB06154 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:04:02 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:09 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > From: "Peter Kay" > > > ... > > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email > > > > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a > > primarily automated process. > > > > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not > > implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the sender. > > > > Sender can mean an individual or an organization. > > > > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given sender > > if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the > > recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email from > > the sender. > > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > I'm sorry, but I find that last paragraph very wrong. Silence in the > face of spam is never consent to more spam! > I tried to word that paragraph carefully but probably stumbled. Either that or you missed the "and". What I'm saying in that last paragraph is that if I've sent you email before AND I've not explicitly asked not to receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving email from you. > Consent to unsolicited bulk email must always be explicit and precede > first message. Agreed. my definition above was about the word "implicit" only, not "ube". > It does not matter how the consent is expressed, > whether by a proper mailing list subscription including confirmation > or some other message. It does matter that spam is spam even it > claims "There is no need to unsubscribe since this is a one-time mailing." > (That phrase was once very common in spam. It's more common now ) > agreed and the above does not contradict that. > Other bits of that definition are objectionable because they are > distracting and irrelevant. It does not matter whether an advertisement > is sent in batch of 1000 or if the energetic and desperate salesperson > addressed and "targeted" each copy manually and so doesn't manage to > send more than 5000 before running out of time to "make quota." > if you can define "bulk" to handle that case I'm all for it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 08:38:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20969 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55CcCi00306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:38:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CcBB00302 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:38:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20909; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ntyb-00068L-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:36:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ntyb-00068I-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:36:17 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CTUB30639; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:29:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CQSB30296 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:26:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19172 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:26:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NtnG-0005mT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:24:34 -0400 Received: from mail16.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.216] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NtnF-0005mB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:24:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 2190 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 12:26:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 12:26:09 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: Barry Shein User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> <16094.32596.876410.281706@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16094.32596.876410.281706@world.std.com> Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050828.38961.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spam Isn't Just Sleaze (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:28:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein wrote: > At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which is best > characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I suspect the problem > would become much more manageable even if not completely solved. > > That's one PR problem with all this, the more we focus on the message > (email whose contents I don't want) the more we're opening ourselves > to accusations of just being anti-commercial zealots. Even "email whose contents I don't want" isn't just commercial. Have you never gotten religious spam? I've gotten a dozen or two. > Who can argue with something like: > > > > ALTHOUGH spam covers a wider set of unwanted email it is certainly > (bulk) email which uses illegal and/or ethically questionable methods I can argue with it. Focus too much on that sort, and the folks who are raring to spam but would use "legit" methods, will feel free. As someone pointed out, if every business sent you one email a year, you'd get almost 8000 a day. IIRC, that's even after assorted qualifiers, like making it USA-based only, and knocking out the ones that probably don't have any Internet access. Even if he's overstating by two whole orders of magnitude, 80 spams a day is way too much. Even 8 spams a day is an annoyance. > MY POINT IS, a list like that is easy for legislators, the media, etc > to get behind and difficult for a so-called white-hat bulk mailer to > quibble with in contrast to definitions which focus on the > repetitious, unsolicited, promotional nature of spam. The latter make > spam sound like a lot of other annoying-but-tolerated advertising. There are vast differences that can be pointed out. There's the way that the other forms don't steal our resources, don't prevent us from seeing other important messages, etc. The only stuff that comes even close are billboards that blot out scenic views, telemarketers who call at bad times or fill up our answering machines, and large snailmail "circulars" that can trap normal mail so that we don't see the normal mail when we toss out the circular. Lots of people used to rage about the first, they still do about the second, and some are starting to rage about the third. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 08:43:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21360 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55Ch0g00546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:43:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55Ch0B00543 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:43:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21349; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nu3F-0006Dx-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:41:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nu3F-0006Dt-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:41:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CZHB31702; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:35:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CYnB31655 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:34:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20504 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NtvL-00062i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:32:55 -0400 Received: from mail13.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.213] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NtvK-00062e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:32:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 32187 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 12:34:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail13.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 12:34:44 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: "Peter Kay" User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050837.15219.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:37:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Peter Kay" wrote: > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given > sender if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender > and the recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive > further email from the sender. Nope. X spams Y. Y, recalling advice never to contact a spammer directly, reports it to ISP(X) for punishment and ISP(Y) for blocking, but does NOT request removal. X has certainly NOT thus implicitly consented to X's next spam-run! -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:00:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23088 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55D0Ka01337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:00:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D0KB01334 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:00:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23061; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuK1-0006ZK-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:58:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuK1-0006ZH-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:58:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CqUB00906; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:52:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55CpqB00885 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:51:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22346 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuBp-0006Pm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:49:57 -0400 Received: from mail14.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.214] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuBo-0006Ph-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:49:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 7180 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 12:51:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 12:51:46 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: Barry Shein Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: "Peter Kay" , References: <16094.44384.458521.584391@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16094.44384.458521.584391@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:54:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein wrote: > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN > > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing" > as spamming. > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means. By the definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at all, of course)), this very list is bulk. So is every other. So are any alerts anybody signs up for. Where do YOU draw the line? > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up with the > money for resources for every blitz by every fortune 1,000,000 > company who decides to unload on their (let's say for argument's > sake) legitimate mailing list hourly. If the ISP didn't put anything in the TOS about using too much bandwidth, it's their own damn fault. You can be sure that something about it WILL be in there come contract renewal time, or the ISP will insist that they upgrade to a higher account type. > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes 10,000 msgs > you frequent flyers! > > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide! > > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to send their > daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW! These sorts of things almost certainly already have very high bandwidth connections. Sure, not as much as they would if they abused the system as you propose, but see above. Also, unlike the normal hit-and-run spammer, these entities give half a damn about not pissing off the recipients, and about their brand reputation. If they get tons of unsubscribes every time their emails-per-week exceeds some reasonable amount (as determined by the subscribers individually), you can bet they'd back off. > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER > guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is > essential to civilization! On that we can agree! Just remember that it works on both sides of the table: "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree!" > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's > just a matter of time. This system is indeed absolutely doomed, but I don't agree that fees are the only way to fix it. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:12:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23507 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55DBfm02870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:11:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DBfB02867 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:11:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23497; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuV0-0006f2-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:09:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuUz-0006ez-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:09:45 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D3AB01492; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:03:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D0aB01354 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:00:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23076 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuKH-0006ZZ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:58:41 -0400 Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.211] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuKG-0006ZW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:58:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 19469 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 13:00:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 13:00:31 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: "Peter Kay" User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050903.02619.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Line Fuzziness (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:03:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Peter Kay" wrote: > If you don't have a clear black line, you'll have spam. > Draw the line. Take the heat, but draw the line. Let some people get > pissed off. Too bad. Yes, you'll have spam -- but possibly much LESS spam than today. As someone said, it'd be OK if I only got one Nigerian Scam per year. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:13:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23618 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55DCpT02931 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:12:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DCpB02928 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:12:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23579; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuW8-0006fp-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:10:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuW8-0006fk-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:10:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D51B01635; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:05:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D4EB01579 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:04:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23218 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuNn-0006bL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:02:19 -0400 Received: from mail15.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.215] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuNn-0006bI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:02:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 22749 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 13:04:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 13:04:10 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: "Peter Kay" Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050906.41885.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:06:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Peter Kay" wrote: > 2. The recipient does not have me on their whitelist, so they send a > challenge. But because their "FROM" address in the MAIL command is > NOT the sender's address, TTK doesn't have that address on its > whitelist so it sends a challenge to the challenge. > > End result is that the TTK user never sees the recipients challenge > and the recipient never gets the email. So what ends up happening is > the recipient has to go through their quarantine folder and pull out > the email. The TTK user never gets the email because the challenge > was killed in the MAIL command. > > So, to me, C/R systems need to at least use their end-users email > address on the MAIL FROM address in the mail command. Using a Reply-To could throw a bit of a monkey-wrench into this. Perhaps the protocol should specify sending to the Reply-To (if present), and if that verifies, then consider the From verified as well. Also, many people have Lots And Lots of addresses. I can think of three addies offhand of mine that lots of people get email from, not counting the temporaries, and sometimes I forget to switch addies when sending to certain people. Perhaps the protocol could also say, "I might also send you email later under the following addresses", and whitelist them too, possibly with the whole C/R process repeated for each. Something tells me there are problems with these ideas, but there's too much blood in my coffee stream to figure them out at the moment. |-) -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:13:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23633 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55DD5V02953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DD5B02950 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23605; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuWM-0006gC-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:11:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuWL-0006g9-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:11:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D53B01659; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:05:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D4uB01598 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:04:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23256 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuOT-0006bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:03:01 -0400 Received: from mail15.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.215] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuOT-0006bZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:03:01 -0400 Received: (qmail 23748 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 13:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 13:04:52 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140020.00ba4f80@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140020.00ba4f80@solidmatrix.com> Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306050907.24234.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:07:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Additionally, some C/R systems might want to > combine several challenges into one message Maybe this is a dumb question, but I'm new to this stuff.... Why would this be of such benefit? IMHO the message should be short enough, and there would be enough benefit to being able to put unique content in each, that it would not be worthwhile to combine them. Do you have some scenario in mind, under which there might be multiple challenges issued to the same destination? -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:17:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23868 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55DH4N03150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:17:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DH4B03147 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:17:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23856; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuaD-0006jq-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:15:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuaC-0006jn-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:15:08 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D93B02765; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:09:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55D8AB02728 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:08:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23382 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuRb-0006dJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:06:15 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuRa-0006dG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:06:14 -0400 Received: from garbagedump.com ([24.128.102.183]) by mxsmta02.dellhost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030605130626.EYMW7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:06:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3EDF40B7.7040504@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a; MultiZilla v1.4.0.4A) Gecko/20030525 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Aronson CC: Barry Shein , Peter Kay , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <16094.44384.458521.584391@world.std.com> <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> In-Reply-To: <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:08:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This might not help but when I think of spam I don't focus on the sender (since defining bulk is a killer) but on the results. I'll bet almost all 'non-spam' emails involve an exchange between end-points - why else send email in the first place. Bulk or spamming is when you send out email and don't expect to get a response from the majority (define it as under 90% or 100% or whatever). FWIW, Chuck Wegrzyn Dave Aronson wrote: >Barry Shein wrote: > > > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > > > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN > > > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing" > > as spamming. > > > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. > >At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means. By the >definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely >automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at >all, of course)), this very list is bulk. So is every other. So are >any alerts anybody signs up for. Where do YOU draw the line? > > > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up with the > > money for resources for every blitz by every fortune 1,000,000 > > company who decides to unload on their (let's say for argument's > > sake) legitimate mailing list hourly. > >If the ISP didn't put anything in the TOS about using too much bandwidth, >it's their own damn fault. You can be sure that something about it WILL >be in there come contract renewal time, or the ISP will insist that they >upgrade to a higher account type. > > > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes 10,000 msgs > > you frequent flyers! > > > > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide! > > > > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to send their > > daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW! > >These sorts of things almost certainly already have very high bandwidth >connections. Sure, not as much as they would if they abused the system >as you propose, but see above. > >Also, unlike the normal hit-and-run spammer, these entities give half a >damn about not pissing off the recipients, and about their brand >reputation. If they get tons of unsubscribes every time their >emails-per-week exceeds some reasonable amount (as determined by the >subscribers individually), you can bet they'd back off. > > > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER > > guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is > > essential to civilization! > >On that we can agree! Just remember that it works on both sides of the >table: "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree!" > > > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's > > just a matter of time. > >This system is indeed absolutely doomed, but I don't agree that fees are >the only way to fix it. > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 09:43:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25141 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55DhE305345 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DhEB05342 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24989; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuzW-0006yp-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:41:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NuzV-0006ym-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:41:17 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DWgB03913; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:32:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DUnB03760 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:30:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24233 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NunW-0006pB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:28:54 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NunV-0006p3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:28:53 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55DUcmu002445 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:30:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051330.h55DUcmu002445@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:30:38 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > ... > I tried to word that paragraph carefully but probably stumbled. Either > that or you missed the "and". What I'm saying in that last paragraph is > that if I've sent you email before AND I've not explicitly asked not to > receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving > email from you. No, it was my mistake. I didn't see who sent the initial mail to whom. However, while I'm not outraged by what you really wrote as was by what I thought I read, I still don't agree. A public address that does not imply implicit consent to receive mail that is not "spam" (whatever the definition) is nonsensical. > > Consent to unsolicited bulk email must always be explicit and precede > > first message. > > Agreed. my definition above was about the word "implicit" only, not > "ube". I don't understand. If a published mail address (e.g. in an ISP's user directory) does not implicitly give permission for non-bulk mail then, what's the point of publishing the address? Or do you mean that sending a mail message amounts to publishing it? > ... > agreed and the above does not contradict that. > > > Other bits of that definition are objectionable because they are > > distracting and irrelevant. It does not matter whether an advertisement > > is sent in batch of 1000 or if the energetic and desperate salesperson > > addressed and "targeted" each copy manually and so doesn't manage to > > send more than 5000 before running out of time to "make quota." > > if you can define "bulk" to handle that case I'm all for it. Again, "bulk" should be defined just as fuzzily as "malice" is defined for "burglary" when in an ISP "court" deciding whether an account should be terminated. Computers are obliged to define "bulk" with a number, but we can use a sane definition that lets me send you an unsolicited question about your C/R system with a copy to the mailing list. There is no conflict, just as there is no conflict between burglar alarms using a simplistic definition for detecting burglary of "anyone here no matter who or why" and courts using a fuzzy definition of "without authorization and with malice" for conviction. Your anti-spam defenses might detect my unsolicited question with a copy to this list as bulk as well as unsolicited, but that's just life. If you have legitimate dealings in buildings with burglar alarms, you must take precautions to avoid setting them off, and that's also just life. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 10:10:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26948 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55E9v907507 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:09:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55E9vB07504 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:09:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26901; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvPN-0007FE-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:08:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvPM-0007FB-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:08:00 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55E1CB06146; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:01:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55DwuB06019 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:58:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25852 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvEi-00079J-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:57:00 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvEh-00079G-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:56:59 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55DwpH4005935 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:58:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051358.h55DwpH4005935@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:58:51 -0600 (MDT) > From: Dave Aronson > ... > At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means. By the > definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely > automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at > all, of course)), this very list is bulk. So is every other. So are > any alerts anybody signs up for. Where do YOU draw the line? By any sane definition, this mailing list is "bulk." If the the operators of this list can produce evidence of a subscription request for every subscriber, then they cannot be conviced in ISP "court" of sending unsolicited bulk mail and so are innocent of "spamming" no matter how many of us employ the "luser" unsubscribe mechanism of screaming "SPAM!" Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 10:21:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27902 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55ELIB08219 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55ELIB08216 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27889; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvaL-0007M6-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:19:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvaL-0007M3-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:19:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EC9B07611; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:12:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55E94B07464 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:09:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26802 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvOV-0007El-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:07:07 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvOU-0007Ei-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:07:07 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55E8vdH009188 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:08:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051408.h55E8vdH009188@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <3EDF40B7.7040504@garbagedump.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:08:57 -0600 (MDT) > From: "C. Wegrzyn" > This might not help but when I think of spam I don't focus on the sender > (since defining bulk is a killer) but on the results. I'll bet almost > all 'non-spam' emails involve an exchange between end-points - why else > send email in the first place. Bulk or spamming is when you send out > email and don't expect to get a response from the majority (define it as > under 90% or 100% or whatever). Your message went to on the order of 1000 people, as will this. I don't expect to receive a response from the majority. Do you? Many entities run bulk mail operations. CNN's "news updates" are certainly "bulk" regardless of how many of their subscribers respond. Provided CNN can show that each and every target subscribed, whether with - logs of an HTTP hit on a unique, unguessable URL sent only to the subscribing address, - a mail message carrying a unique, unguessable key sent only to the subscribing address, - some other mechanism that convincingly shows that the owner of the address and no third party or CNN did the subscribing, then CNN's bulk mail is not "unsolicited" and so not spam. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 10:31:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28426 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55EVSV08762 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EVSB08759 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28411; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvkB-0007S1-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:29:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvkA-0007Ry-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:29:30 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55ENQB08304; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:23:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55ELXB08235 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27898 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nvab-0007MD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:19:37 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nvaa-0007MA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:19:36 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h55ELQw2009134 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:24 -0400 At 8:37 AM -0400 6/5/03, Dave Aronson wrote: >"Peter Kay" wrote: > > > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given > > sender if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender > > and the recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive > > further email from the sender. > >Nope. X spams Y. Y, recalling advice never to contact a spammer >directly, reports it to ISP(X) for punishment and ISP(Y) for blocking, >but does NOT request removal. X has certainly NOT thus implicitly >consented to X's next spam-run! I think you have your X's and Y's mixed up. In your example, Mr. Kay's axiom would imply that X has implicitly given permission for Y to mail him. I think that's sound. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 10:32:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28449 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55EVqM08789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EVqB08786 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28422; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:31:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvkZ-0007S7-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:29:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvkZ-0007S4-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:29:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EO2B08329; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:24:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EM2B08251 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:22:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27921 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nvb4-0007MR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:20:06 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-73-230-190.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nvb3-0007MO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:20:05 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h55ELuw2009137 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:21:54 -0400 At 11:09 PM -0600 6/4/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: "Peter Kay" > >> ... >> Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email >> >> Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a >> primarily automated process. >> >> Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not >> implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the sender. >> >> Sender can mean an individual or an organization. >> >> A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given sender >> if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the >> recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email from >> the sender. > > >I'm sorry, but I find that last paragraph very wrong. Silence in the >face of spam is never consent to more spam! I don't think that's what Mr. Kay's axiom says. I am not sure that what he did say there is really universally applicable, since it might imply that I am subscribing to Verisign's spam by mailing one of their employees, but for most cases involving individuals it is sound. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 11:02:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29544 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55F1lV11454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:01:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F1lB11451 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:01:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29524; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwDV-0007fk-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwDV-0007fh-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:49 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EpuB10604; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:51:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EjJB10274 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:45:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28853 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nvxa-0007W4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:43:22 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NvxU-0007W1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:43:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605104450.00badf08@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:44:51 -0400 At 10:44 PM 6/4/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > These four accounted for about 84% of all MTAs with the other MTAs were 1% > > or less. Of these, qmail and sendmail account for 59.28% of all MTAs, with > > the Windows ones accounting for the other 24.27%. > > > > IF a CRI protocol is implemented and both qmail and sendmail support it, > > that would mean that a sizable majority of the Internet would support it. > > ... > >There is a very large difference between the the current versions of >a package supporting something and installations of the package >supporting it. It is not only that I suspect most SMTP servers are >more than a year behind in current releases, but that having facilities >available in the code is not at all the same as turning them on. My original post ended off with: "The question remains, taking the impact of qmail and sendmail, and the propagation rates for admins installing the newest versions, how long would deployment take?" That is my question exactly, how long will it take for such feature for propagate if it were included in sendmail and qmail. Dave Crocker begun to address adoption issues in his draft but more work needs to be done. The adoption/propogation of features is an issue not just with CRI but with any anti-spam protocol or proposal. However, I believe that ISPs and end-users have a bigger incentive to turn-on such features due to the amount of spam today. >A good case study is SMTP-TLS. Sendmail and other STMP implementations >have supported SMTP-TLS for a year or two. Turning on SMTP-TLS >in sendmail is easy, one you figure it out the OpenSSL documentation. >It is entirely upward compatable and a Good Thing(tm) for a bunch >of reasons. However, as far as I can tell the vast majority of >the Internet does not support SMTP-TLS and practically none of the >minority that does has done the trivial additional work to make >available their certs. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that >I see almost as many signs of SMTP-TLS in my logs from spammers as >from legitimate SMTP clients. In truth I see little of either, >but some of both. > >Before you say that everyone cares about spam but not about mail >confidentiality and security and so your protocol would be different, >please say why ISPs that would have to turn on your protocol have >not done what's necessary to find and crush spammers. Why did >Earthlink reportedly spend months and millions of dollars of >technician and inside lawyer time chasing the Buffalo Spammer while >the outside lawyer pin him in days? I tend to disagree with SMTP-TLS example. Confidentiality of email via SMTP-TLS is something that most end-users or ISPs do not care about. Even though every single time that I send an email, the National Security Agency or some hacker who hacked a router on the way can listen in, that does not affect my every day life. Most users are not affected by SMTP-TLS presence or absence since you do not see the NSA or hackers publishing people's private email in the National Enquirer. Thus, there is not incentive for them to do anything which is not true with spam. Whatever is true for SMTP-TLS is also true for PGP and S/MIME, which have not become widespread. People do not go through the added burden of setting these things up because of lack of incentive. As for the Earthlink example, I am not sure exactly what you mean. I was not aware that Earthlink used outside lawyers which successed in several days after spending money on doing it in-house. Please provide some links for the story. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 11:02:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29574 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55F20A11473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:02:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F20B11470 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:02:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29534; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwDj-0007ft-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:00:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwDi-0007fq-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:00:02 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55Er3B10685; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:53:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EqjB10643 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:52:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29094 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nw4m-0007Zh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:50:48 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nw4k-0007Zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:50:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605103833.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Dave Aronson , "Peter Kay" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Cc: In-Reply-To: <200306050906.41885.dja2003@hotpop.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:52:21 -0400 At 09:06 AM 6/5/2003 -0400, Dave Aronson wrote: >"Peter Kay" wrote: > > > 2. The recipient does not have me on their whitelist, so they send a > > challenge. But because their "FROM" address in the MAIL command is > > NOT the sender's address, TTK doesn't have that address on its > > whitelist so it sends a challenge to the challenge. > > > > End result is that the TTK user never sees the recipients challenge > > and the recipient never gets the email. So what ends up happening is > > the recipient has to go through their quarantine folder and pull out > > the email. The TTK user never gets the email because the challenge > > was killed in the MAIL command. > > > > So, to me, C/R systems need to at least use their end-users email > > address on the MAIL FROM address in the mail command. > >Using a Reply-To could throw a bit of a monkey-wrench into this. Perhaps >the protocol should specify sending to the Reply-To (if present), and if >that verifies, then consider the From verified as well. > >Also, many people have Lots And Lots of addresses. I can think of three >addies offhand of mine that lots of people get email from, not counting >the temporaries, and sometimes I forget to switch addies when sending to >certain people. Perhaps the protocol could also say, "I might also send >you email later under the following addresses", and whitelist them too, >possibly with the whole C/R process repeated for each. > >Something tells me there are problems with these ideas, but there's too >much blood in my coffee stream to figure them out at the moment. |-) Careful perusal of the relevant RFCs shows that there are differences between these fields. Section 3.6.2 of RFC 2822, distinguishes between various "sender" fields: o "The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the writing of the message." o "The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message. " o "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent." The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since that is the mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" addresses that is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, rather it indicates a mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It is perfectly legal and sometimes even recommended in RFC 2821 to use <> for the MAIL FROM. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 11:09:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00626 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55F8vo12780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:08:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F8vB12777 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:08:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00587; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwKR-00001w-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:06:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwKQ-00001t-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:06:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F0GB11210; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:00:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55EvGB10984 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29249 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nw99-0007cS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:55:19 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nw96-0007cO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:55:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605105230.00b9c4c8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric D. Williams" , "'Eric Dean'" , "asrg@ietf.org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <01C32AF1.3E0955F0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:56:48 -0400 At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] >wrote: >8<...>8 > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an RFC 2822 > > registration process that I am aware of. > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the introduction >of an >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?' >[..] Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is approved then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 11:09:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00701 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55F9Qb12843 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:09:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F9QB12840 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:09:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00615; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwKu-00002L-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:07:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwKt-00002I-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:07:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F1TB11429; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:01:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55F0eB11288 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:00:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29397 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwCR-0007eh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:58:43 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwCO-0007eD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:58:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605105702.00bbe100@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Dave Aronson From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header Cc: In-Reply-To: <200306050907.24234.dja2003@hotpop.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140020.00ba4f80@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030604140020.00ba4f80@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:59:33 -0400 At 09:07 AM 6/5/2003 -0400, Dave Aronson wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > Additionally, some C/R systems might want to > > combine several challenges into one message > >Maybe this is a dumb question, but I'm new to this stuff.... > >Why would this be of such benefit? IMHO the message should be short >enough, and there would be enough benefit to being able to put unique >content in each, that it would not be worthwhile to combine them. Do >you have some scenario in mind, under which there might be multiple >challenges issued to the same destination? 1. Two major ISPs, both operating C/R systems. They might want to combine multiple C/R challenges together to save on bandwidth. 2. Messages addresses to multiple users at the same ISP. It is easier to deal with one message then many. This would be good for mailing lists, where in case of AOL, instead of thousands of challenges, only one will be sent. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 11:41:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03905 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55FfNU15681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:41:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55FfNB15678 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:41:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03859; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nwpu-0000V2-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nwpt-0000Uz-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:39:29 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55FX9B14282; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:33:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55FUwB14164 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:30:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02821 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nwfo-0000Pi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:29:04 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nwfn-0000Pf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:29:03 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55FUslk024759 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:30:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051530.h55FUslk024759@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605102559.00b9fad0@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:30:54 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > That is my question exactly, how long will it take for such feature for > propagate if it were included in sendmail and qmail. Dave Crocker begun to > address adoption issues in his draft but more work needs to be done. What more work can be done that would not be "shooting the bull"? No one can accurately predict what literally millions of people will do. The best that can be done is to examine similar past cases. > The > adoption/propogation of features is an issue not just with CRI but with any > anti-spam protocol or proposal. That is quite wrong. As Dave Crocker's draft points out and as others have often said, many anti-spam protocols and proposals are effective with for the first few users. Examples include - the DCC - Vipul's Razor, - Brightmail, - Postini, - SpamAssassin, - private blacklists, - public DNS blacklists including the RBL, RBL+, SBL, SPEWS, and SORBS, - various "Bayesian" filters, > However, I believe that ISPs and end-users > have a bigger incentive to turn-on such features due to the amount of spam > today. That is fundamentally "build it and they will come." People who have built things and who are not sales professionals (no offense intended to anyone) tend to be less optimistic about whether people will come on their own. > ... > I tend to disagree with SMTP-TLS example. Confidentiality of email via > SMTP-TLS is something that most end-users or ISPs do not care about. ... Ok, how about Microsoft and other security patches? Why are there so many worms and viruses that affect systems that would have been invulnerable if they had installed the proper patches that were released 6 or 12 months ago. > ... > As for the Earthlink example, I am not sure exactly what you mean. I was > not aware that Earthlink used outside lawyers which successed in several > days after spending money on doing it in-house. Please provide some links > for the story. See http://news.google.com/news?q=%22buffalo+spammer%22 The best account I'we seen was the Wall Street Journal's in http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105225593382372600-search,00.html but that may require a subscription. http://www.misweb.com/newsarticle.asp?doc_id=21807&rgid=15 seems similar to the WSJ article. In re-reading the WSJ article, I seem I'm quite wrong about how long Pete Wellborn was on the case. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 11:49:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04261 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55Fn3X16107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:49:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55Fn2B16103 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:49:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04233; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwxI-0000Zd-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:47:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwxI-0000Za-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:47:08 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55FeGB15569; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:40:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55Fe0B15499 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:40:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03743 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwoZ-0000Tu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:38:07 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NwoY-0000Tr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:38:06 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55Fdvns025222 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:39:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051539.h55Fdvns025222@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:39:57 -0600 (MDT) > From: Bill Cole > I think you have your X's and Y's mixed up. the mistake I made. > In your example, Mr. Kay's axiom would imply that X has implicitly > given permission for Y to mail him. > > I think that's sound. Are you sure of that? Thinking about it some more, I think those words not only confuse some of us but are dangerous. Y surely already has permission to send non-bulk mail to X if Y has legitimate possession of X's address (e.g. found somewhere open like the archives for this list instead of bad means such as dictionary attacks). Saying that X's mail somehow gives more permission suggests that Y has permission to do more. Would sending a message to Verisign asking about the real owners of an odd certificate owned supposedly by "Microsoft Corporation" give Verisign permission to flood your mailbox with their familiar stream of messages about Verisign products? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 12:25:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05390 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55GPT619112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:25:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55GPTB19109 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:25:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05385; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NxWY-0000rP-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:23:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NxWY-0000rM-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:23:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55GGMB18696; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:16:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55GFuB18671 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:15:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05167 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NxNK-0000o9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:14:02 -0400 Received: from mail13.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.213] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NxNJ-0000o6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:14:01 -0400 Received: (qmail 3597 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 16:15:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail13.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 16:15:53 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: Bill Cole , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306051218.24106.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:18:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Cole wrote: > At 8:37 AM -0400 6/5/03, Dave Aronson wrote: > >"Peter Kay" wrote: > > > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given > > > sender if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender > > > and the recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive > > > further email from the sender. > > > > Nope. X spams Y. Y, recalling advice never to contact a spammer > > directly, reports it to ISP(X) for punishment and ISP(Y) for > > blocking, but does NOT request removal. X has certainly NOT thus > > implicitly consented to X's next spam-run! > > I think you have your X's and Y's mixed up. > > In your example, Mr. Kay's axiom would imply that X has implicitly > given permission for Y to mail him. > > I think that's sound. Oops, yes, you're right, sorry, mea culpa, etc. Too much blood in the coffee stream indeed.... -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 12:33:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05560 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55GWpg19473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:32:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55GWoB19462 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:32:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05544; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nxdg-0000uJ-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:30:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nxdf-0000uD-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:30:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55GP3B19081; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:25:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55GOFB19040 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:24:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05355 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NxVM-0000r6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:22:20 -0400 Received: from mail9.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.209] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NxVM-0000r3-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:22:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 23637 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 16:24:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail9.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2003 16:24:10 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: pdeutsch@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Asrg@ietf.org References: <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> <3EDF6106.BBF329B6@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <3EDF6106.BBF329B6@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306051226.42707.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:26:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Deutsch wrote: > Dave Aronson wrote: > > Barry Shein wrote: > > > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > > > > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN > > > > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > > > > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk > > > mailing" as spamming. > > > > > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. > > > > At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means. By the > > definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely > > automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send > > email at all, of course)), this very list is bulk. So is every > > other. So are any alerts anybody signs up for. Where do YOU draw > > the line? > > But mailing lists are not unsolicited, there's an implied consent in > your act of subscription, non? Right, but Barry was speaking of removing the issue of consent from the definition of spam, 'defining any "bulk mailing" as spamming.' I'm trying to get a sense of whether he really means that. The alternative is that he was just using hyperbole, and there is, after all, some sort of alternate line he would endorse, between legit bulk mail and spam. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 14:13:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09015 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55ICmX28129 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:12:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55ICmB28126 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:12:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08988; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzCN-0001je-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:10:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzCM-0001jb-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:10:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55I1bB26535; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:01:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55I08B26447 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08434 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nz07-0001an-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:11 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nz06-0001ZP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:58:10 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A55F7220088; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 08:01:03 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:04:12 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <46d8471d-10c3-4923-a271-28f4c7c2a278> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Thread-Index: AcMrgAFdWABLLkJ0SHOOfJMfLGVdrgAC3oUA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h55I08B26448 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:59:36 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I would say that if you sent verisign an email ( and that email was NOT asking to no longer receive emails) that, yes, there is an implied consent to communicate with verisign. And yes, if they "flooded" you with messages about their products, it is NOT UBE (I still may not like it, and I may even hate it, but its not UBE). However that also means that if you tell Verisign "stop" and they still keep sending, its UBE. If Verisign ever sends you messages about their products without ever receiving implied or explicit consent from you, its UBE. It also means that if, on the signature of your email, you EXPLICITLY state you do not want to receive any bulk email, and they ignore that EXPLICIT request, its UBE. There's a difference between mail we don't want to get, bad practices of various vendors, and UBE. If we can keep this thread on defining the U and B along nice, thick black lines, then we have a clear definition of UBE. We can never claim that people will never receive an email that they don't like or want, we can't help ISPs figure out how not to lose money accepting email, and we can't stop your uncle from sending you stupid jokes, but we can certainly look at an email and say, "yes, that's UBE" or "no, that's not UBE". And then we can make sure our technology solutions are in-line with the scope of the problem that UBE defines. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:40 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria > for "what is spam"...) > > > > From: Bill Cole > > > I think you have your X's and Y's mixed up. > > the mistake I made. > > > In your example, Mr. Kay's axiom would imply that X has implicitly > > given permission for Y to mail him. > > > > I think that's sound. > > Are you sure of that? Thinking about it some more, I think > those words not only confuse some of us but are dangerous. > > Y surely already has permission to send non-bulk mail to X if > Y has legitimate possession of X's address (e.g. found > somewhere open like the archives for this list instead of bad > means such as dictionary attacks). Saying that X's mail > somehow gives more permission suggests that Y has permission > to do more. > Would sending a message to Verisign asking about the real > owners of an odd certificate owned supposedly by "Microsoft > Corporation" give Verisign permission to flood your mailbox > with their familiar stream of messages about Verisign products? > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 14:23:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09571 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55IMq328642 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:22:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IMqB28639 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:22:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09556; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzM7-0001tu-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:20:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzM7-0001tr-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:20:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55ICAB28056; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:12:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IBIB28000 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:11:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08889 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:11:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzAw-0001iI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:09:22 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzAt-0001iF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:09:20 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605141048.00bc09f0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] IPR Document updated Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:10:49 -0400 I added the Microsoft patent on filtering to the IPR page (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 14:26:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09784 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:26:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55IQPs28827 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:26:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IQPB28824 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:26:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09774; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzPY-0001ya-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:24:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzPX-0001yX-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:24:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IE1B28212; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:14:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IDpB28195 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:13:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09063 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:13:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzDO-0001jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:11:54 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzDN-0001jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:11:53 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19NzF1-0004Qw-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:13:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200306041227.27506.cameron@cs.sfu.ca> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam as a symptom of sender/recipient imbalance. To: "Rob Cameron" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.5] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 12.81.87.167 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:13:35 +0100 > > The notion of sender/recipient imbalance then becomes a theory > that at once helps explain spam and also predicts that the > problem of spam may be mitigated by addressing the imbalance. > The two general ways of doing this are: (a) reducing the power of > senders and (b) increasing the power of recipients. Most > anti-spam proposals can be characterized as addressing one > or both of these objectives, typically at the MTA or network > infrastructure level for approach (a) or at the MUA level for > approach (b). > > Focussing on the sender/recipient imbalance may help avoid > value judgments/arguments as to whether a particular instance > of annoying e-mail is or is not spam. As many have pointed > out, there is a large grey area. Care must be taken to avoid > moving into this grey area in deploying MTA or network-level > approaches that either classify messages as spam or senders > as spammers. But if these classification approaches are > augmented by other means that address the sender/recipient > imbalance, then there may be no need to move into the > grey area at the infrastructure levels. > This imbalance exists chiefly because submission into the MTS is under control of the sender, but transmission within the MTS (MTA, MDA) is not (often) under any control of the "recipient". > Personally, I am interested in approach (b): empowering recipients > through increased automation at the MUA. I see challenge-response > systems as a first step in this automation, but consider that there may > be other benefits to MUA-level automation that ought also to be explored. > For example, one scenario in our work is that C/R systems can > be leveraged to perform other useful functions such as automated > change-of-address negotiation (whitelist/address book updating). > > Nevertheless, it is very important that MTA and network-based > approaches also be developed. In the short term, MUA-based > approaches will not help with network traffic reduction. Any approach which propagates "recipient" policy (and control) upstream (towards the sender) will reduce the imbalance you identify. MUA based approaches which do not modulate the upstream MTS can have only limited utility. > > Over the long term, we will continue to need asynchronous > text-based messaging. But we will need to ensure that the > great power of automation that senders may employ in generating > messages is matched by a corresponding power of recipients > to automate responses when and as appropriate. > Quite, but what kind of responses? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 14:36:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10214 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55IaIu29593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IaIB29590 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10191; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzZ6-00024l-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:34:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzZ6-00024i-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:34:20 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IS6B28926; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:28:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IR5B28885 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:27:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09808 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzQC-0001z0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:25:08 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzQA-0001ys-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:25:07 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605141103.00b52c08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework In-Reply-To: <200306051530.h55FUslk024759@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605102559.00b9fad0@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:26:43 -0400 At 09:30 AM 6/5/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > That is my question exactly, how long will it take for such feature for > > propagate if it were included in sendmail and qmail. Dave Crocker begun to > > address adoption issues in his draft but more work needs to be done. > >What more work can be done that would not be "shooting the bull"? >No one can accurately predict what literally millions of people will do. >The best that can be done is to examine similar past cases. Very well I agree with that. The question is finding the most similar past cases. > > The > > adoption/propogation of features is an issue not just with CRI but with > any > > anti-spam protocol or proposal. > >That is quite wrong. As Dave Crocker's draft points out and as >others have often said, many anti-spam protocols and proposals are >effective with for the first few users. Examples include > - the DCC > - Vipul's Razor, > - Brightmail, > - Postini, > - SpamAssassin, > - private blacklists, > - public DNS blacklists including the RBL, RBL+, SBL, SPEWS, and SORBS, > - various "Bayesian" filters, Allow me to explain my thoughts more clearly. I agree with your point that these proposals have taken off rather well. However, these proposals are "one-sided" - meaning they only require one side of the email transaction to implement them. By contrast, "two sided" protocols such as RMX and CRI, which require both sides to participate, would be much slower to be adopted. I was referring originally to these "two sided" proposals in my message and forgot to mention that. Another point it that there is a difference between C/R and CRI. C/R is one-side and does not need two sides to agree on anything. This is being done today. C/R is the anti-spam tool and in line with your comments, would in theory be adapted fast. CRI on the other hand is used to enhance the user experience of C/R systems allowing them to interoperate without human interaction, would eventually follow albeit slower. > > However, I believe that ISPs and end-users > > have a bigger incentive to turn-on such features due to the amount of spam > > today. > >That is fundamentally "build it and they will come." People who >have built things and who are not sales professionals (no offense >intended to anyone) tend to be less optimistic about whether people >will come on their own. > > > > ... > > I tend to disagree with SMTP-TLS example. Confidentiality of email via > > SMTP-TLS is something that most end-users or ISPs do not care about. ... > >Ok, how about Microsoft and other security patches? Why are there so >many worms and viruses that affect systems that would have been >invulnerable if they had installed the proper patches that were released >6 or 12 months ago. I do not think it is a good example either. How many users see effects of viruses and worms on the daily basis? On the other hand almost every email user on the planet gets spam every other day. We need to look at an example where there was a major issue that was relevant to a majority of users on a DAILY basis, and the adoption rate of technical solutions that were made to solve it > > ... > > As for the Earthlink example, I am not sure exactly what you mean. I was > > not aware that Earthlink used outside lawyers which successed in several > > days after spending money on doing it in-house. Please provide some links > > for the story. > >See http://news.google.com/news?q=%22buffalo+spammer%22 > >The best account I'we seen was the Wall Street Journal's in >http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105225593382372600-search,00.html >but that may require a subscription. > >http://www.misweb.com/newsarticle.asp?doc_id=21807&rgid=15 >seems similar to the WSJ article. > >In re-reading the WSJ article, I seem I'm quite wrong about how long >Pete Wellborn was on the case. The article seems to be proving the Earthlink goes after spammers very quickly including terminating accounts the same day. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 14:37:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10257 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55IamX29625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IamB29622 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10212; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzZb-000252-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:34:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzZa-00024z-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:34:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IT3B29113; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:29:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55ISrB29051 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:28:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09896 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzRw-00020X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:26:56 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzRv-00020U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:26:55 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55ISk0I005644 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:28:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051828.h55ISk0I005644@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:28:46 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > I would say that if you sent verisign an email ( and that email was NOT > asking to no longer receive emails) that, yes, there is an implied > consent to communicate with verisign. And yes, if they "flooded" you > with messages about their products, it is NOT UBE (I still may not like > it, and I may even hate it, but its not UBE). I strongly disagee with that notion. It is not justified by the need to make the crime of spam well defined. Instead, you need only require that Verisign have evidence that a reasonable person would agree is a solicitation for bulk mail. A message saying "tell me how to use PKI" would probably qualify as a solicitation, particularly given the educational facade of the Verisign spam. However, there is no honest justification for treating a message asking "Is the enclosed cert for Microsoft Corporation for the organization in Redmond or a repetition of the infamous fraud?" as a request for Verisign's familiar spam. > ... > It also means that if, on the signature of your email, you EXPLICITLY > state you do not want to receive any bulk email, and they ignore that > EXPLICIT request, its UBE. In the real world, absolutely no one wants all bulk mail. Absolutely everyone who knew it would be effective would add that phrase to their signatures. That is another way of stating the obvious fact that bulk mail is not implicitedly solicited by any and all communications from the victim. > There's a difference between mail we don't want to get, bad practices of > various vendors, and UBE. If we can keep this thread on defining the U > and B along nice, thick black lines, then we have a clear definition of > UBE. Again, it is impossible and undesirable to draw thick black lines that separate spam from non-spam, except for our computers that we know are too stupid to see the real, fuzzy lines. Any line thick enough to be seen by computers will overlap some hard cases and so controversial cases. It is impossible to avoid all controversy about whether mail is spam, just as it is impossible to avoid all controversy and even injustice about all cases of burglarly and insider trading. There will always be gray areas. Simplistic definitions cannot work and only give aid and comfort to spammers. > We can never claim that people will never receive an email that they > don't like or want, we can't help ISPs figure out how not to lose money > accepting email, and we can't stop your uncle from sending you stupid > jokes, but we can certainly look at an email and say, "yes, that's UBE" > or "no, that's not UBE". Yes, but there will always be fuzzy cases where reasonable people will disagree, just as with insider trading and burglarly. > And then we can make sure our technology solutions are in-line with the > scope of the problem that UBE defines. That is just as true of technical spam defenses as burglar alarms and the SEC's insider trading detection systems. The techncial machinery can do a good job, but it can never be even as imperfect as we are (at least not until we have truely thinking and understanding computers). There will always be cases where the machinery gets it wrong, as well as cases where we can't agree on what's right. Insisting that the machinery be absolutely in-line with what we think is spam is equivalent to the obvious nonsense that false positives and false negatives will never happen. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 14:50:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10720 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:50:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55IoRo31090 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:50:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IoRB31087 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:50:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10668; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nzmn-0002Aq-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:48:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nzmn-0002An-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:48:29 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55Ig8B30777; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:42:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IdaB30638 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:39:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10336 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzcJ-00026R-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:37:39 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NzcI-00026M-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:37:38 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (bgb@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h55IdOi2004073; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:39:24 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03420; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:39:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16095.36443.410343.325895@world.std.com> To: Dave Aronson Cc: Barry Shein , "Peter Kay" , Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> References: <16094.44384.458521.584391@world.std.com> <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:39:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 5, 2003 at 08:54 dja2003@hotpop.com (Dave Aronson) wrote: > Barry Shein wrote: > > > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote: > > > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN > > > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming. > > > > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing" > > as spamming. > > > > I realize I won't get consensus on that here. > > At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means. By the > definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely > automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at > all, of course)), this very list is bulk. So is every other. So are > any alerts anybody signs up for. Where do YOU draw the line? All of it, although still useful I suspect even subscription mailing lists will have to evolve, probably into some sort of pull technology. One problem, for example, are mailing lists (and so-called white-hat bulk emailers) who never clean up their lists and just bounce user unknowns at servers all day. Why should they bother? There's little or no cost to them to just keep sending to those defunct accts, the cost of maintaining the lists would be vastly higher than just ignoring the bounces. More and more I'm seeing "white-hat" bulk mailings from Fortune 100 companies whose return addresses are designed to not return, pointed at hosts with non-existant or non-functioning MX's so you get to just keep trying to return the mess of User Unknowns they generated every 30 minutes for 3 days or whatever until they finally time out. As a parallel, it's not like the post office will deliver your paper mail for free just because you asked the other side to send it. The entire model is deeply flawed. ...skipping... > > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER > > guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is > > essential to civilization! > > On that we can agree! Just remember that it works on both sides of the > table: "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree!" Well, as an ISP I'm often that fellow behind the tree. Particularly so long as this non-stop rush to see who goes broke last continues. > > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's > > just a matter of time. > This system is indeed absolutely doomed, but I don't agree that fees are > the only way to fix it. Well, you know where your keyboard is, propose something else to control scaling other than cost. I fear that most people kinda stop at "but I don't agree that fees..." for a reason, they know they don't like the idea of fees but don't really have anything else to suggest as a model. Unfortunately a lot of the problems in the world come down to either baking more bread or organizing bread lines. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 15:10:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11947 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55J9n400324 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55J9nB00321 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11863; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O05X-0002K2-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:07:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O05W-0002Jz-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:07:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55J0EB31455; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:00:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55IxbB31390 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10928 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nzvf-0002Ef-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:57:39 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Nzve-0002Ec-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:57:39 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h55IxKi2004996; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:21 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14386; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16095.37640.183353.125780@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <200306051408.h55E8vdH009188@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <3EDF40B7.7040504@garbagedump.com> <200306051408.h55E8vdH009188@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:59:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 5, 2003 at 08:08 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > Many entities run bulk mail operations. CNN's "news updates" are > certainly "bulk" regardless of how many of their subscribers respond. > Provided CNN can show that each and every target subscribed, whether > with > - logs of an HTTP hit on a unique, unguessable URL sent only to > the subscribing address, > - a mail message carrying a unique, unguessable key sent only to > the subscribing address, > - some other mechanism that convincingly shows that the owner of > the address and no third party or CNN did the subscribing, > then CNN's bulk mail is not "unsolicited" and so not spam. Ah, Vernon, you're so generous, let's rephrase this just slightly: If CNN's recipient list meets the criteria you outline then the bulk mailing must be delivered for free and without interference. Who exactly is to provide these bottomless resources is not your concern, resources must be provided because it'd be FAIR, and we all know the world is free of starving children, people w/o proper medical care, and victims of despots, because if it's FAIR then it's field of dreams, the resources must appear. So, if CNN behaves FAIRLY, then whatever resources they need must be made to appear. Anything else would be, well, UNFAIR! Ok, one might say, well, they don't really care, in this context, if it's free per se, that's just a market consideration and orthogonal. But then I'd reply that's contrived patter and what's meant is free, or certainly independent of any realistic scaling. Who are we kidding? Follow the rules we lay down and your reward is unlimited access to mailboxes basically for free (let's not quibble the nanopennies.) I'm only trying to point out that the "spam" problem is huge, much more huge than focusing on "stuff we don't want" belies. It's the old problem of everyone running around trying to stick someone else with the bill. Which is one main reason I'm suggesting we focus down on the illegal and unethical (by which I mean "ought to be illegal if not") methods the worst spammers use. The main reasoning being that I think we can all pretty well understand identity forging, open relays, viruses etc, as bad things which need to be contained. But on the bigger issue, with all due respect, I think the naivete' being displayed here is alarming. As I've said, those multi-billion dollar big company ad budgets are just waiting for you (collective "you", "us") to solve all this and clear them a free, smooth road to travel on. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 15:21:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13108 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55JLAr01468 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JLAB01465 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13076; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Ga-0002WB-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:19:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0GZ-0002W8-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:19:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JDQB00657; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:13:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55J9uB00343 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11895 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O05e-0002KM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:07:58 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([199.172.62.105] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O05d-0002KJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:07:57 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (jeanie@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h55J9lVq009638; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:47 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19351; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16095.38265.356904.303919@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030604202758.00ba5d08@std5.imagineis.com> References: <3EDDFA54.5060600@voltapc.com> <01C32A24.4F1C2660.eric@infobro.com> <200306040851.38620.dja2003@hotpop.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030604202758.00ba5d08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 4, 2003 at 20:29 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > At 07:23 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > > >At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which is best > >characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I suspect the problem > >would become much more manageable even if not completely solved. > >[..] > > Would you nevertheless agree that UBE that is not sent using "llegal and/or > ethically questionable methods" would still be considered spam? But of course, and I'd go further and say that's still a small subset because create a static-free, approved channel to literally hundreds of millions of eyeballs and you'll see the "U" in "UBE" stretched like a yoga convention. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 15:21:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13123 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55JLLc01486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JLLB01483 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13100; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Gl-0002WM-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:19:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Gk-0002WJ-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:19:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JDJB00613; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:13:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55J9TB00313 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11822 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O05D-0002Jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:07:31 -0400 Received: from 75.209.219.209.transedge.com ([209.219.209.75] helo=ckmso2.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O05D-0002JX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:07:31 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h55J8run021839 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:08:53 -0400 Received: from att.com (tony-ob.mt.att.com[135.91.246.200](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20030605190724gw100r9hile> (Authid: tony); Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:07:24 +0000 Message-ID: <3EDF9560.1040805@att.com> From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605105230.00b9c4c8@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605105230.00b9c4c8@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:09:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is > approved then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > similar to the HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > indicate gzip encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). I disagree. When you write the internet-draft, ONLY specify the CRI header. X- headers should only be used for doing experiments before you write the internet-draft. As soon as you enter the ietf-space, stick to the real name. x-gzip was specified to handle backward compatibility because there was considerable history with its use prior to the RFCs being written. You don't have that problem here -- there is no history of previous uses of X-CRI that needs to be supported. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 15:29:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13408 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55JSlp01889 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:28:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JSlB01886 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:28:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13399; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Nx-0002Zh-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:26:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Nx-0002Ze-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:26:53 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JL8B01457; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:21:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JK1B01380 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:20:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13037 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0FT-0002V0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:18:07 -0400 Received: from yampa.river.com ([206.168.112.68] helo=mdev.river.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0FT-0002Uv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:18:07 -0400 Received: from localhost. (v13.river.com [206.168.117.188]) by mdev.river.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFEE692D for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:19:46 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:19:36 -0600 At 10:21 -0400 on 2003-06-05, Bill Cole wrote: > > In your example, Mr. Kay's axiom would imply that X has implicitly > given permission for Y to mail him. > > I think that's sound. It's sound only when given a sunset provision. If I request a quote from a vendor, they should respond with a quote. However, they may -not- add me to their newsletter (or any other continuing stream of marketing jive) just because I requested a quote. [1] The implicit permission has to be limited by the context of the initial exchange, or we end up with just another excuse for Y spamming X. Richard [1] Example: I requested a PKI CA quote from Verisign, via telephone, and gave my email address to an engineer only after instructing him to keep it out of the hands of marketing. They slammed me into their newsletter anyway (repeatedly -- one of the RISKs of grepping /var/log/maillog is that you pick up those complaining and re-add them). They lost the $50k+renewal as a result. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 15:31:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13493 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55JV0602048 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:31:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JV0B02045 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:31:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13473; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Q6-0002az-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:29:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Q6-0002aw-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:29:06 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JI2B01201; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:18:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JHkB01155 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:17:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12946 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0DJ-0002TU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:15:53 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0DI-0002TR-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:15:52 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (jeanie@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h55JGZsG018292; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:16:35 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24306; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:16:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16095.38674.752038.951518@world.std.com> To: Dave Aronson Cc: pdeutsch@earthlink.net, Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... In-Reply-To: <200306051226.42707.dja2003@hotpop.com> References: <200306050854.17767.dja2003@hotpop.com> <3EDF6106.BBF329B6@earthlink.net> <200306051226.42707.dja2003@hotpop.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:16:34 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 5, 2003 at 12:26 dja2003@hotpop.com (Dave Aronson) wrote: > > But mailing lists are not unsolicited, there's an implied consent in > > your act of subscription, non? > > Right, but Barry was speaking of removing the issue of consent from the > definition of spam, 'defining any "bulk mailing" as spamming.' I'm > trying to get a sense of whether he really means that. The alternative > is that he was just using hyperbole, and there is, after all, some sort > of alternate line he would endorse, between legit bulk mail and spam. I'm saying that focusing on the "consent" aspect is not only futile but ultimately going to backfire. Better to focus on the fraud aspects as a first step because they're easier to agree on and define and, I hope, act upon. Besides, w/o the various fraud aspects I suspect much spam is sunk, no matter how you define spam. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 15:34:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13576 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55JXil02173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:33:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JXiB02170 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:33:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13551; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Sk-0002cI-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:31:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Sk-0002cF-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:31:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JQ5B01731; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:26:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JPRB01708 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:25:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13312 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Kk-0002Yg-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:23:34 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0Ki-0002Yd-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:23:33 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55JPM4j015507 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:25:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306051925.h55JPM4j015507@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <16095.37640.183353.125780@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:25:22 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > If CNN's recipient list meets the criteria you outline then the bulk > mailing must be delivered for free and without interference. > > Who exactly is to provide these bottomless resources is not your > concern, resources must be provided because it'd be FAIR, and we all > know the world is free of starving children, people w/o proper medical > care, and victims of despots, because if it's FAIR then it's field of > dreams, the resources must appear. .... That and the following is equivalent to UPS whining about the cost of delivering all of those packages. Instead, the people who solicited CNN's stuff should be paying you just as they also pay you for the GBytes of dirty pictures they fetch with FTP and HTTP and the GBytess of pirated MP3s they fetch with "file sharing" protocols. Or do you run one of those ISPs that claims to provide something for nothing? > Which is one main reason I'm suggesting we focus down on the illegal > and unethical (by which I mean "ought to be illegal if not") methods > the worst spammers use. > > The main reasoning being that I think we can all pretty well > understand identity forging, open relays, viruses etc, as bad things > which need to be contained. Focusing on those sounds ok, for a while. What do you want to do about them? As far as I can tell, they're all against various laws. New laws passed by the IRTF or IETF are unlikely to be effective until the IETF's request to purchase guns for the IESG is approved by the ISOC. I doubt that the real lawmakers would pay attention to recommendations from these parts, particularly after their generous campaign donors drop a few hints, but the effort might not hurt. If you are urging technical solutions such as authentication to reduce forgery, perhaps you could start by fixing that your own SMTP systems to do SMTP-TLS. > But on the bigger issue, with all due respect, I think the naivete' > being displayed here is alarming. > > As I've said, those multi-billion dollar big company ad budgets are > just waiting for you (collective "you", "us") to solve all this and > clear them a free, smooth road to travel on. Various things displayed here are alarming, but what bothers me about our current exchange is that a businessman doesn't seem to want to admit that he has customers and that providing the services those customers want, including receiving mail from CNN, might not be free for him to provide. Without any undue respect, you need to stop and look for stubborn infections of the old dot-bomb, new-economy, money-for-nothing syndrome. If your customers spend to many Gbits/sec of your bandwidth on baseball scores from CNN, the sane thing is to charge them more. Yes, I intend the implication. Those of your customers that receive GBytes of mail, whether they consider it "spam" or not, should pay you for your services. If you want to keep them as customers, you might also consider helping them to avoid unwanted mail with filters or whatever else you consider effective. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 16:08:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15153 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55K7ue05645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:07:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55K7uB05641 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:07:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15138; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0zp-00031J-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:06:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0zp-00031G-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:06:01 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55K08B04413; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JweB04310 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:58:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14822 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0qs-0002xT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:56:46 -0400 Received: from yampa.river.com ([206.168.112.68] helo=mdev.river.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O0qr-0002xQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:56:46 -0400 Received: from localhost. (v13.river.com [206.168.117.188]) by mdev.river.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E62692E for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:58:37 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:53:28 -0600 At 07:59 -1000 on 2003-06-05, Peter Kay wrote: > However that also means that if you tell Verisign "stop" and they still > keep sending, its UBE. If Verisign ever sends you messages about their > products without ever receiving implied or explicit consent from you, > its UBE. I believe there is no way to safely manage "implied consent" for BE streams. Consent for such needs to be explicit. > It also means that if, on the signature of your email, you EXPLICITLY > state you do not want to receive any bulk email, and they ignore that > EXPLICIT request, its UBE. I think that's where your implicit consent assumption falls apart. Everyone would put a "no BE" statement in their .sigs if it were going to work to prevent slamming into BE streams. [1] The reasonable assumption made when sending email is that responses will be topical and will not, unless explicitly requested, involve a stream of BE. "Implied consent" interpreted overly broadly, such as allowing the sender to assume some kind of signup for BE after receiving any mail, inevitably leads to spamming. If I don't explicitly and knowingly sign up for a stream of BE, then it's UBE regardless of what the -sender- claims. Richard [1] For example, the one I include on mail to vendors didn't work against Verisign, or NetLux, or Thawte-pre-Verisign, or... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 16:35:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16035 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55KZDs07075 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:35:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KZDB07072 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:35:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16000; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1QE-0003H1-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:33:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1QD-0003Gy-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:33:17 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KQNB06505; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:26:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KPAB06426 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:25:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15709 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1GV-0003Bd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:23:15 -0400 Received: from mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.20.174]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1GU-0003BF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:23:15 -0400 Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KOSv27841 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:24:29 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030606061425.027d5950@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:24:27 +1000 >>"Peter Kay" wrote: >> >> > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given >> > sender if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender >> > and the recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive >> > further email from the sender. This over-simplifies matters. You can't simply ask if there is implied consent to receive email generally - you have to ask if there is implied consent to receive a particular message with all the attributes of the particular message received. This brings us back to the example of an open store. There is implied consent to enter for the purpose of browsing or buying, but if you enter for the purpose of robbing, then your entry is legally a trespass. If you enter wearing a sandwich-board advertising a nearby competitor, your entry is a trespass. Generally, sending somebody a message isn't generally not going to create new implied consent for a message that was not already within the scope of the implied consent that arises just by having an accessible email address. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 17:03:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17061 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55L2sd10065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:02:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55L2sB10062 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:02:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17048; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1r0-0003Xh-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:00:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1r0-0003Xe-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:00:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KtFB08952; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:55:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KsLB08909 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:54:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16552 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1ik-0003QD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:52:26 -0400 Received: from mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.20.160]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O1ii-0003Pu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:52:25 -0400 Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c18374.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.142.222]) by mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55KriJ23953 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:53:44 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030606062827.027e46a0@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: From: Troy Rollo Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:53:42 +1000 At 13:53 5/06/03 -0600, Richard Johnson wrote: >I believe there is no way to safely manage "implied consent" for BE >streams. Consent for such needs to be explicit. I would go further and say that rather than logistical difficulties, there is never implied consent for bulk email. The reason for this is that it's simply not necessary to have implied consent for bulk email in the cases where it is suggested that implied consent might exist. In those cases, there is already a 1:1 communication stream underway. This means that the potential sender has an opportunity to seek explicit consent. Failure to do so is done out of either (a) laziness; or (b) a failure to care about whether there really is consent. In fact if you're assuming consent in such cases, you know that as part of your operation you will be hitting, people who do not consider there to be implicit consent. As I have mentioned before, consent is a legal concept, and being a legal concept there are some broad guidelines for how to determine when consent it implied. If you're interested in this in more detail, I would recommend: Young P, "The Law of Consent", Law Book Co, Sydney, 1986. Although this book is not exhaustive of the concept, it's the closest thing I've found to a canonical discussion of the issues of consent. One survey in 2000 (, see under heading "ONLINE BUYERS DREAD JUNK MAIL") pegged the number of users who do not regard a pre-existing relationship as giving consent to marketing material at 78%. The figures have increased over time, so the position that pre-existing relationships mean implied consent for bulk email reflects neither a practical necessity nor the views of the people who are receiving the bulk email (and it is their views that matter for the question of the existence of implied consent, not the desires of the vendors). Even if the figures were turned around, you couldn't really claim implied consent. Implied consent would only arise where no reasonable person would regard the communication as not requiring implied consent. You'd have to either get the numbers of people who object to this practice down to something under 5%, or demonstrate that there is something in the circumstances that makes their view unreasonable. The fact that the contrary behaviour is normal practice of vendors does not make the view unreasonable. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 17:28:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17980 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55LSBs12290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:28:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55LSBB12287 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:28:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17972; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O2FS-0003lr-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:26:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O2FS-0003lo-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:26:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55LJ6B11736; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:19:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55LIoB11697 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:18:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17607 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O26Q-0003g9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:16:54 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O26O-0003fw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:16:52 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A3E68290086; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:19:34 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:22:43 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <6ab04a6c-5f89-4215-a1ff-f622992e457c> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) Thread-Index: AcMrpOBduXMgszmvRMym2C8xfZxQ4QAAHvAg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Richard Johnson" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h55LIoB11698 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:18:07 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit You emailed the text right out of my keystrokes :) I agree: there is no such thing as implicit consent to receive bulk email. So therefore the updated definition goes like this: Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email, or UBE Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a primarily automated process. Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not explicitly approved of receiving bulk email from the sender. Sender can mean an individual or an organization. In summary, UBE means: The transmission of multiple emails via a primarily automated process to recipients that have not explicitly approved to receive such emails. OK gang, fire away. Peter www.titankey.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Johnson [mailto:rdump@river.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:53 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria > for "what is spam"...) > > > At 07:59 -1000 on 2003-06-05, Peter Kay wrote: > > However that also means that if you tell Verisign "stop" and they > > still keep sending, its UBE. If Verisign ever sends you messages > > about their products without ever receiving implied or explicit > > consent from you, its UBE. > > > I believe there is no way to safely manage "implied consent" > for BE streams. Consent for such needs to be explicit. > > > > It also means that if, on the signature of your email, you > EXPLICITLY > > state you do not want to receive any bulk email, and they > ignore that > > EXPLICIT request, its UBE. > > > I think that's where your implicit consent assumption falls > apart. Everyone would put a "no BE" statement in their .sigs > if it were going to work to prevent slamming into BE streams. [1] > > The reasonable assumption made when sending email is that > responses will be topical and will not, unless explicitly > requested, involve a stream of BE. > > "Implied consent" interpreted overly broadly, such as > allowing the sender to assume some kind of signup for BE > after receiving any mail, inevitably leads to spamming. > > If I don't explicitly and knowingly sign up for a stream of > BE, then it's UBE regardless of what the -sender- claims. > > > Richard > > [1] For example, the one I include on mail to vendors didn't > work against Verisign, or NetLux, or Thawte-pre-Verisign, > or... _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 17:30:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18064 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55LThs12394 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:29:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55LTgB12391 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:29:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18051; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O2Gw-0003n5-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:27:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O2Gw-0003n2-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:27:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55LL2B11837; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:21:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55LKYB11809 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:20:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17725 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O286-0003gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:18:38 -0400 Received: from 000-237-424.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.166.189] helo=68.27.166.189) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O283-0003gv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:18:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605171952.00b3e7b0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Tony Hansen , "Eric Dean" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:19:54 -0400 At 03:09 PM 6/5/2003 -0400, Tony Hansen wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >>Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard >>gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is >>approved then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is >>similar to the HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to >>indicate gzip encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > >I disagree. When you write the internet-draft, ONLY specify the CRI >header. X- headers should only be used for doing experiments before you >write the internet-draft. As soon as you enter the ietf-space, stick to >the real name. x-gzip was specified to handle backward compatibility >because there was considerable history with its use prior to the RFCs >being written. You don't have that problem here -- there is no history of >previous uses of X-CRI that needs to be supported. The question is what do we do during the standards process until the RFC is approved, do we use "X-" or the regular headers? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 18:35:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20901 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55MYf016625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:34:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55MYfB16622 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:34:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20877; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O3Hn-0004F3-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:32:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O3Hn-0004F0-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:32:43 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55MQOB16244; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:26:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55MPOB16196 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:25:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20606 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O38p-00049p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:23:27 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O38n-00049K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:23:26 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55MReF00939; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:27:40 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <189362475782.20030605152312@brandenburg.com> To: "Peter Kay" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:23:12 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter, PK> Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a PK> primarily automated process. I believe that we do not care whether it was automated, and we have no way to tell that it was automated. Hence, citing that characteristic does not give us any useful technical guidance for preventing, detecting or disposing of spam. And the number '2' is certain to be highly problematic. PK> Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not PK> explicitly approved of receiving bulk email from the sender. The example I posted about a student sending personal queries to some experts -- and let's remember it does not matter how the student got their addresses -- is unsolicited, but should not count as bulk. PK> OK gang, fire away. bang. bang. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 19:15:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21915 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:15:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55NEfe20066 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:14:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55NEeB20063 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:14:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21902; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O3uZ-0004W4-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:12:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O3uY-0004W1-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:12:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55N6BB18824; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:06:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55N5IB18776 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:05:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21647 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O3lQ-0004Qe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:03:20 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O3lP-0004Qb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:03:19 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55N56GP026367 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:05:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306052305.h55N56GP026367@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) References: <200306052200.h55M0Bk2012684@calcite.rhyolite.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:05:06 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" > ... > I agree: there is no such thing as implicit consent to receive bulk > email. So therefore the updated definition goes like this: > > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email, or UBE > > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a > primarily automated process. > > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not > explicitly approved of receiving bulk email from the sender. > > Sender can mean an individual or an organization. > > In summary, UBE means: > > The transmission of multiple emails via a primarily automated process to > recipients that have not explicitly approved to receive such emails. > > OK gang, fire away. Either you keep avoiding my question or I've not asked clearly. Why do you insist on complicating things instead of using the dictionary defintions of "bulk" and "unsolicited"? What is the significance of automation? Would 10,000 messages sent manually not be spam? What is even one desirable difference between "explicitly approved to receive" and "unsolicited?" You say what sender can mean as if it might mean some third thing. What is the third possibility? A lot of clarity is lost by replacing "unsolicited bulk email" with your 80 words. What is gained? On other hand, if the intent is to discuss reasons for choosing "unsolicited bulk email," there ought to be about 100 times as many words. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 19:29:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22135 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h55NTH320796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55NTHB20793 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22130; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O48g-0004Zo-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:27:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O48g-0004Zl-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:27:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55NL6B20522; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:21:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55NL0B20507 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:21:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21980 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O40g-0004Xe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:19:06 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O40f-0004Xb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:19:05 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h55NKvAM028339 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:20:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306052320.h55NKvAM028339@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 References: <189362475782.20030605152312@brandenburg.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:20:57 -0600 (MDT) > From: Dave Crocker > ... > The example I posted about a student sending personal queries to some > experts -- and let's remember it does not matter how the student got > their addresses -- is unsolicited, but should not count as bulk. > ... Why not!? "Bulk" does not mean "spam," if you are defining "spam" and you are not insisting that "spam" and "bulk" are synonyms. If your student sent a lot of substantially identical messages, it makes no sense to say they are not bulk. You might say that 2, 20, 200, 2000, or however many are not enough to be "a lot" or "bulk." You might also insist (incorrectly, in my view) that the student's spew was not spam, but "bulk" is not a word that you reasonably redefine. "Bulk" means "lots of the same stuff" in English. Or as http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=bulk puts it, "material that forms a mass in the intestine; especially: FIBER" It's crazy to set out to define "spam" and procede by redefining words that are already well defined in English. If you think "unsolicited bulk email" is a bad definition of "spam," then propose other English (or Latin, or whatever) words. Don't embark on an infinite regression of (re)defining the words that you are (re)defining that you are (re)defining that ... Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 20:10:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23141 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5609s824348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:09:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5609sB24345 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:09:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23133; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4lz-0004pp-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:07:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4lz-0004pm-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:07:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5601vB23224; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:01:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5600fB23158 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:00:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23008 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4d4-0004nS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:58:46 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4d3-0004nB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:58:45 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5602sF05794; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:02:54 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <28368267510.20030605165944@brandenburg.com> To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 In-Reply-To: <200306052320.h55NKvAM028339@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <189362475782.20030605152312@brandenburg.com> <200306052320.h55NKvAM028339@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:59:44 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon, >> From: Dave Crocker >> ... >> The example I posted about a student sending personal queries to some >> experts -- and let's remember it does not matter how the student got >> their addresses -- is unsolicited, but should not count as bulk. >> ... VS> Why not!? "Bulk" does not mean "spam," if you are defining "spam" VS> and you are not insisting that "spam" and "bulk" are synonyms. as I said in the note with the example, it is the combination of unsolicited and bulk that make it spam. Remove either qualifier and it is something else. VS> If your student sent a lot of substantially identical messages, it makes VS> no sense to say they are not bulk. The problem is with the distinction between "a lot" and "not a lot". If the student sends 2, it is not bulk. If they send 1,000,000 it is. Where is the line that divides? Why? VS> It's crazy to set out to define "spam" and procede by redefining VS> words that are already well defined in English. I agree entirely. VS> If you think VS> "unsolicited bulk email" is a bad definition of "spam," then propose VS> other English (or Latin, or whatever) words. perhaps it will help if you respond to the detail of my earlier post, where I suggest that UBE is a good working term, and then consider the challenges to qualifying the components. And, yes, I think that the "reasonable person" approach has its uses, but not enough for building software. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 20:21:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23347 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h560KcB24709 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:20:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560KcB24706 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:20:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23343; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4wN-0004sy-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:18:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4wM-0004sv-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:18:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560B2B24401; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:11:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560AWB24382 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:10:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23157 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4mb-0004pz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:08:37 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O4ma-0004pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:08:36 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mreddin@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h560AKsG002223; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:10:25 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11322; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16095.56299.311912.582535@world.std.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: "Peter Kay" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) In-Reply-To: <189362475782.20030605152312@brandenburg.com> References: <189362475782.20030605152312@brandenburg.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:10:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: what is bulk etc To some extent what we need here is an actual legal scholar. The law is full of problems like this where a specific act is colored by intent making it slippery to define. Not surprisingly, a lot of fraud has this quality. The same exact set of actions can be a serious criminal fraud in one case and completely innocent in another, depending upon what can be discerned about intent. The legal term is "mens rea", the state of mind of the perpetrator at the time of the act, what was their goal, could they reasonably foresee the result of their actions, etc. This is why we're going round and round on the term "bulk", we're trying to make the term (or the phrase UBE) describe the mens rea of the sender. Potentially difficult, but the law has wrestled with similar definitional issues for many hundreds of years. That said, I think the usual framework used by the legal system is to create a brief set of "tests", essentially a form one might fill out describing a perp's actions in terms of a set of (one hopes) carefully constructed questions, usually standardized by some rather broad-based process like a bunch of law faculty and judges, much like a technical standard in spirit. The problem with that approach is it makes for boring press & soundbites and it takes some experience and discipline to construct (again, like technical standards.) Another problem is the clash of disciplines, law in my limited experience tends to be enumerative and synthetic, give them more examples they add more clauses (the ten commandments ceased being the whole of the law a long time ago), while engineering and science tends to be analytic, there's a goal to reduce all the cases to a simple rule or two, E=MC^2 and all that (or, for the musically inclined, E=Fb). -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 20:40:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23810 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h560eGt26339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:40:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560eGB26336 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:40:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23806; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O5FM-0004zC-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:38:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O5FM-0004z8-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:38:20 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560WJB25214; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:32:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560V9B25155 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:31:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23570 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O56Y-0004wn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:29:14 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O56X-0004wS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:29:13 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h560PINr018267; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306060025.h560PINr018267@nic-naa.net> To: Barry Shein cc: Dave Crocker , "Peter Kay" , asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:10:19 EDT." <16095.56299.311912.582535@world.std.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:25:18 -0400 > To some extent what we need here is an actual legal scholar. I agree, and the litigator I recently experted for offered to provide this. I told him that as none of the majors waw paying, or participating, it was a waste of billable time for us minors. For grins, keep in mind that the -esse has to parse in both the civil law and common law jargon-und-jurisdiction-doms. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 20:52:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23935 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h560q7X26638 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:52:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560q7B26635 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:52:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23927; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O5Qp-00051u-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:50:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O5Qp-00051r-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:50:11 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560i5B26434; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:44:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h560h3B26407 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:43:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23833 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O5I4-0004zl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:41:08 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O5Hz-0004zi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:41:04 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h560ghbc019043 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:42:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306060042.h560ghbc019043@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 References: <28368267510.20030605165944@brandenburg.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:42:43 -0600 (MDT) > From: Dave Crocker > ... > VS> Why not!? "Bulk" does not mean "spam," if you are defining "spam" > VS> and you are not insisting that "spam" and "bulk" are synonyms. > > as I said in the note with the example, it is the combination of > unsolicited and bulk that make it spam. Remove either qualifier and it > is something else. Oh, that's not what I understood you to write. > VS> If your student sent a lot of substantially identical messages, it makes > VS> no sense to say they are not bulk. > > The problem is with the distinction between "a lot" and "not a lot". If > the student sends 2, it is not bulk. If they send 1,000,000 it is. > Where is the line that divides? Why? Why must the dividing line by a single fixed number for us humans? There is no mechanical rule that defines burglary or insider trading and there cannot be. Still, the world manages to define, prosecute, deter and generally control those crimes--well, at least burglary. The world also has quite useful burglar alarms and the SEC catches some inside traders with their computers. Of necessity, burglar alarms and the SEC's systems use simplistic, fundamentally flawed, and wrong thresholds. Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but let people installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds appropriate for local conditions or other constraints? For example, a reasonable threshold for a spam-bulk-alarm at AOL might be 1000. At a vanity domain SMTP server like Rhyolite.com, 3 is reasonable and 5 is generous because any message that hits 5 addresses @rhyolite.com is practically certain to be hitting 50,000,000 at AOL. > ... > perhaps it will help if you respond to the detail of my earlier post, > where I suggest that UBE is a good working term, and then consider the > challenges to qualifying the components. What do you mean by "qualifying the components"? > And, yes, I think that the "reasonable person" approach has its uses, > but not enough for building software. Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining offenses. Let's first define the offense of "spam" and then decide how to approximately characterize it for our stupid computers. Let's also be entirely clear when we are talking about spam and when we are talking about whatever our computers can detect or defend against. Trying to define spam as that which we our comptuers can detect is a serious mistake. As you and others have often said, we cannot hope to eliminate all spam. An equivalent statement is that we cannot hope for our computers to detect all spam. It would make good sense to define spam as UBE but note that our computers might not always detect spews involving fewer than 1000 victims. That would encourage spammers to try to stay below 1000 victims, but it would also encourage us to improve our software to detect more cases of UBE. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 21:41:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24858 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h561fW030001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561fWB29998 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24829; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6Cd-0005GF-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:39:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6Cd-0005GC-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:39:35 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561XIB28738; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:33:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561WAB28674 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:32:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24590 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O63a-0005Bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:30:14 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O63Z-0005BZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:30:13 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561YVF10109; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:34:31 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <55373774319.20030605183131@brandenburg.com> To: Vernon Schryver CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 In-Reply-To: <200306060042.h560ghbc019043@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <28368267510.20030605165944@brandenburg.com> <200306060042.h560ghbc019043@calcite.rhyolite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:31:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon, >> as I said in the note with the example, it is the combination of >> unsolicited and bulk that make it spam. Remove either qualifier and it >> is something else. VS> Oh, that's not what I understood you to write. Just for reference, this was the note with the example I was citing: VS> Why must the dividing line by a single fixed number for us humans? We want to build software to prevent, detect or dispose of spam. Software does not know about "reasonable" definitions of "bulk". What is the algorithm we should feed the software? For these discussions, I am not in the least concerned with legal aspects of enforcement or rule-making. I want software algorithms. VS> Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but let people VS> installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds appropriate for local VS> conditions or other constraints? This is one of those questions that needs to get two different answers: 1. We must, of course, let individual users have control over parameters. 2. Individuals will get these parameters wrong, especially if they are FORCED to set them. It is one thing to have common agreement of commonly-acceptable parameters, and then permit "tuning" by inidividual users. It is another to have no consistent construct (threshholds) anywhere in the system. 3. (Bonus answer, beyond the promised 2) The enforcement is often by an intermediary and I guarantee that they will set the parameters differently than the recipient wants. This is the really major reason to do interoperability standards, rather than just letting everybody set the details themselves. VS> Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining offenses. I thought this was a technical discussion list, so I was -- perhaps foolishly -- thinking that we wanted to vector definitions to a place that permitted implementation by software, rather than courts. VS> Trying to define spam as that which we our comptuers can detect is a VS> serious mistake. As you and others have often said, we cannot hope VS> to eliminate all spam. An equivalent statement is that we cannot hope VS> for our computers to detect all spam. Frankly, I am hoping that we simply get away from the term. No, I do not think we can agree on a universal, all-encompassing definition for spam and, no, I do not think we can prevent or detect all spam. That's why I am in the group that believes we should settle on a definition of something that we CAN operationalizem, for which improved control will mean improved Internet usability. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 22:01:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25196 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56211930715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56211B30712 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25183; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6VU-0005MN-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:59:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6VU-0005MK-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:59:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561o9B30268; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:50:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561nVB30223 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:49:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25009 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6KM-0005Ii-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:47:34 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6KK-0005If-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:47:33 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h561nDSu005726 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:49:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306060149.h561nDSu005726@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 References: <55373774319.20030605183131@brandenburg.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:49:13 -0600 (MDT) > From: Dave Crocker > ... > VS> Trying to define spam as that which we our comptuers can detect is a > VS> serious mistake. As you and others have often said, we cannot hope > VS> to eliminate all spam. An equivalent statement is that we cannot hope > VS> for our computers to detect all spam. > > Frankly, I am hoping that we simply get away from the term. No, I do > not think we can agree on a universal, all-encompassing definition for > spam and, no, I do not think we can prevent or detect all spam. > > That's why I am in the group that believes we should settle on a > definition of something that we CAN operationalizem, for which improved > control will mean improved Internet usability. It would also be a major mistake to define "unsolicited bulk email" as that which our computers can detect. As in any technical design process, the first step is to figure out what we're doing. Nit picking about whether the word "bulk" in the requirements document should be 2 or 3 is destructive. We must address the fuzziness of "bulk" only when we worry about reducing the requirements to something for the computers. Judging from other contributions about "largely automated mechanims" and so forth, we are not ready for that. Besides, your bit about the student does not seem to be about resolving the fuzziness of "bulk" but finding contractions between the fuzzy human notion and what computers will do and so throwing out the notion entirely. Perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you instead saying that 2 is the wrong value of "bulk" for computers? If so, what number do you prefer? For what it's worth, most of the thousands of operators of DCC clients seem to prefer either values between 20 and 100 or the special infinite or overflow count of targets that means "incredibly bulky because the message hit a spam trap." (One of the critical parameters for a DCC client is the local threshold for "bulk.") Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 22:06:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25242 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56262Q30825 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56262B30822 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25237; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:05:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6aL-0005Mv-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:04:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6aL-0005Ms-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:04:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561v3B30548; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:57:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561udB30518 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:56:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25103 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6RG-0005LF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:54:42 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6RG-0005LB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:54:42 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A50F2CE009E; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:57:35 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 02:00:44 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) Thread-Index: AcMrvsyMSxxLxLRLTDKyyd+Bvwsh6QAD76lg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h561udB30519 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:54:14 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Vernon, My intention behind clarifying what UBE means in the context of attempting to define spam. If you want to use the dictionary terms for the words, perhaps you can go to the dictionary, pull out the words, and show us what you come up with. I tried that but what came out made a lot less sense. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:05 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit > Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) > > > > From: "Peter Kay" > > > ... > > I agree: there is no such thing as implicit consent to receive bulk > > email. So therefore the updated definition goes like this: > > > > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email, or UBE > > > > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a > > primarily automated process. > > > > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not > > explicitly approved of receiving bulk email from the sender. > > > > Sender can mean an individual or an organization. > > > > In summary, UBE means: > > > > The transmission of multiple emails via a primarily > automated process > > to recipients that have not explicitly approved to receive such > > emails. > > > > OK gang, fire away. > > Either you keep avoiding my question or I've not asked > clearly. Why do you insist on complicating things instead of > using the dictionary defintions of "bulk" and "unsolicited"? > What is the significance of automation? Would 10,000 > messages sent manually not be spam? What is even one > desirable difference between "explicitly approved to receive" > and "unsolicited?" You say what sender can mean as if it > might mean some third thing. What is the third possibility? > A lot of clarity is lost by replacing "unsolicited bulk > email" with your 80 words. What is gained? > > On other hand, if the intent is to discuss reasons for > choosing "unsolicited bulk email," there ought to be about > 100 times as many words. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 22:09:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25312 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5628sk31808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:08:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5628sB31805 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:08:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25301; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6d6-0005NY-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:06:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6d6-0005NV-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:06:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56201B30644; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:00:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561xTB30609 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:59:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25160 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6U0-0005Lr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:57:32 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6Tz-0005Ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:57:31 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A5B92D6009E; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:00:25 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 02:03:34 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)) Thread-Index: AcMruJAaFhluTO8qRY69lf8vKgCPbQAFosZg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Dave Crocker" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h561xTB30610 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:58:57 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dave, > > Peter, > > PK> Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more > emails via a > PK> primarily automated process. > > I believe that we do not care whether it was automated, and > we have no way to tell that it was automated. > > Hence, citing that characteristic does not give us any useful > technical guidance for preventing, detecting or disposing of spam. > I'm unclear here. Are you saying that because today we don't try to detect automation we can't use the term bulk? > And the number '2' is certain to be highly problematic. > > > PK> Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not > PK> explicitly approved of receiving bulk email from the sender. > > The example I posted about a student sending personal queries > to some experts -- and let's remember it does not matter how > the student got their addresses -- is unsolicited, but should > not count as bulk. > > I don't know why you would post about some extreme unlikelyhood and then use that as a position to discredit a definition. But to directly answer your question, if a student hand-typed individiual emails and sent them out one by one to a list of email addresses, that would not qualify as UBE. It would be U but not B. > PK> OK gang, fire away. > > bang. bang. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > Sunnyvale, CA USA , > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 22:14:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25464 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h562Dtb32007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:13:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h562DtB32004 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:13:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25434; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6hx-0005PJ-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:11:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6hx-0005PG-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:11:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5626BB30845; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:06:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56255B30800 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:05:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25222 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6ZP-0005Mf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:03:08 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6ZP-0005Mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:03:07 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A70855C009C; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:06:00 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 02:09:09 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <22c26073-fa59-4747-9d5b-ce0232cd9767> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Thread-Index: AcMrzZAuLKccCyL0RI2XiVyiEJtqSgAAhFwQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h56255B30801 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:04:33 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Vernon, > > Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but > let people installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds > appropriate for local conditions or other constraints? For > example, a reasonable threshold for a spam-bulk-alarm at AOL > might be 1000. At a vanity domain SMTP server like > Rhyolite.com, 3 is reasonable and 5 is generous because any > message that hits 5 addresses @rhyolite.com is practically > certain to be hitting 50,000,000 at AOL. > I don't think we can "define 'bulk' as 'bulk'" because the definition of "bulk" in the dictionary does not apply at all. Maybe http://www.m-w.com is the wrong place. What definition do you get when you look up "bulk". We need to define "bulk" within the context of UBE. If we can't define UBE how can we possibly hope to do any meaningful research on it? > > Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining > offenses. Let's first define the offense of "spam" and then > decide how to approximately characterize it for our stupid > computers. Let's also be entirely clear when we are talking > about spam and when we are talking about whatever our > computers can detect or defend against. > Isn't that what we're trying to do? Did I miss something? Aren't we trying to define what is spam and what is not? Or is the definition of an "offense" something else entirely. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 22:28:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25819 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h562S5A32706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h562S5B32703 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25801; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6vf-0005UV-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:26:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6ve-0005US-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:26:06 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h562K7B32440; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:20:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h562JeB32339 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:19:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25604 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6nW-0005RP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:17:42 -0400 Received: from 75.209.219.209.transedge.com ([209.219.209.75] helo=ckmso2.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6nW-0005RC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:17:42 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h562J5un024275 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:19:05 -0400 Received: from att.com (unknown[135.210.128.30](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20030606021735gw100r9ille> (Authid: tony); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:17:35 +0000 Message-ID: <3EDFFA33.5070802@att.com> From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605171952.00b3e7b0@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605171952.00b3e7b0@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:19:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The question is what do we do during the standards process until the RFC > is approved, do we use "X-" or the regular headers? Simple: you write the internet draft in terms of what you expect to be standardized. That is, in terms of regular headers. For example, when the MIME standard was being worked on, the internet drafts were written using headers such as Content-Type, etc. They were NOT written using X-Content-Type, and the name changed right before publication. It was specified as Content-Type all along. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 23:20:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26752 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h563KNu04010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:20:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h563KNB04007 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:20:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26743; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:20:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O7kL-0005lW-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:18:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O7kL-0005lT-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:18:29 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h563CQB03702; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:12:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h563BlB03648 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:11:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26572 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O7bw-0005j7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:09:48 -0400 Received: from h-d1d1248a.digitalpod.com ([209.209.36.138] helo=yaweno.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O7bw-0005j3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:09:48 -0400 Received: from apocalypse [206.170.148.241] by yaweno.com (SMTPD32-7.03) id A4852F007C; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:03:33 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Howard Roth" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:08:36 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to stir the mud here's my take on defining SPAM: SPAM is the set of all "unwanted email" Within the set of "unwanted email" you have two major categories each can be divided up into subcategories: 1) Unsolicited email a) Bulk email * Commercial email * Non-commercial email (someone using evite to get you to a party) b) Individual email * Commercial email * Non-commercial email 2) Solicited email (not an issue as you asked for it even if it's unwanted) a) Bulk email * Commercial email * Non-commercial email b) Individual email * Commercial email * Non-commercial email Using an entity like the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) one should be able to get on a "do not send" list to stop receiving unsolicited commercial email (bulk or individual). Of course this concept only works if the marketers adhere to the rules (legislated or not). Since this method would not inhibit enough of the email traffic that should be halted to disappear, a process to do so needs to be created. This is where the bang for the buck is. It's not a matter of addressing all SPAM, but rather making it VERY difficult for unsolicited commercial email to clog the pipes. The unsolicited individual non-commercial emails to a professor or address written over a urinal should be addressed by the method of challenge and response. This of course is at the discretion of the receiver to turn it on or not. It's like someone knocking at your front door. You ask who it is and if you like the response you let them in. Otherwise they go away. I don't think there needs to be a special definition for 'bulk' other than it constitutes more than one, as most people should agree with. Howard Roth Vernon, > > Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but > let people installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds > appropriate for local conditions or other constraints? For > example, a reasonable threshold for a spam-bulk-alarm at AOL > might be 1000. At a vanity domain SMTP server like > Rhyolite.com, 3 is reasonable and 5 is generous because any > message that hits 5 addresses @rhyolite.com is practically > certain to be hitting 50,000,000 at AOL. > I don't think we can "define 'bulk' as 'bulk'" because the definition of "bulk" in the dictionary does not apply at all. Maybe http://www.m-w.com is the wrong place. What definition do you get when you look up "bulk". We need to define "bulk" within the context of UBE. If we can't define UBE how can we possibly hope to do any meaningful research on it? > > Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining > offenses. Let's first define the offense of "spam" and then > decide how to approximately characterize it for our stupid > computers. Let's also be entirely clear when we are talking > about spam and when we are talking about whatever our > computers can detect or defend against. > Isn't that what we're trying to do? Did I miss something? Aren't we trying to define what is spam and what is not? Or is the definition of an "offense" something else entirely. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 5 23:57:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27394 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h563vGH06189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h563vGB06186 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27387; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8K1-0005vq-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:55:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8K1-0005vn-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:55:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h563nAB05828; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:49:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h563mUB05802 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:48:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27193 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8BX-0005tE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:46:35 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8BW-0005tB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:46:34 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2423655 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:48:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605103833.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605103833.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:22:00 -0400 At 10:52 AM -0400 6/5/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since that is >the mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" >addresses that is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, >rather it indicates a mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It >is perfectly legal and sometimes even recommended in RFC 2821 to use ><> for the MAIL FROM. Are you advocating that C/R systems send mail to the From: address rather than MAIL FROM? That strikes me as exceedingly wrong. MAIL FROM is for notification of delivery problems--and that's exactly what C/R is. Furthermore, we've seen on this list what happens when a C/R system sends to From: instead of MAIL FROM--everyone who posts to the list gets challenged by the person who forgot to whitelist the mailing list. This is the "On Vacation" message problem all over again. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 00:28:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28135 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h564SU708041 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:28:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h564SUB08038 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:28:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28129; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8oE-00065O-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:26:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8oE-00065L-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:26:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h564KUB07822; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:20:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h564JvB07776 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:19:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27910 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8fy-00062Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:18:02 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O8fx-00062N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:18:01 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mreddin@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h564JrUm027361; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:19:53 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08473; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:19:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16096.5737.753964.940754@world.std.com> To: Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 00:19:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Something which keeps coming up in these definitional attempts is that we seem to go around and around spam as being a personal and/or group experience. "Bulk" is a group experience, I only know it is "bulk" because a lot of other people received it. When I look at one msg on the screen I have no idea if anyone else received it. "Unsolicited" is a personal experience. You may've signed up for information about body part enlargement, and I haven't, doesn't matter if it's bulk, for me it's spam, for you it isn't (using the common definitions of this group, forget my more draconian definitions for the moment), same msg, same sender. And of course when people talk about "unwanted" they mostly are in the realm of personal experience, somewhere along one's outrage scale. I once termed this "solicitations for products I certainly don't want anyone else to think I requested!" I know, dialectic can be tedious; it's more fun to just charge forward and begin slaying the dragon. But I think we're rushing headlong into semantics and definitions w/o a lot of (disciplined) thought. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 01:48:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29530 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h565mKr12976 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:48:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h565mKB12973 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:48:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29522; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OA3T-0006PG-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:46:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OA3S-0006PD-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:46:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h565dNB12681; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:39:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h565cQB12656 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:38:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29408 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 01:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O9tt-0006NR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:36:29 -0400 Received: from h-d1d1248a.digitalpod.com ([209.209.36.138] helo=yaweno.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O9tt-0006NO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:36:29 -0400 Received: from apocalypse [206.170.148.241] by yaweno.com (SMTPD32-7.03) id A6EB3F007E; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:30:19 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Howard Roth" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <16096.5737.753964.940754@world.std.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:35:23 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Spam is a 'personal' experience no matter how you slice it. I get a message in my inbox that I didn't want to receive. Like consciousness, I only know that I received it, even if others have it. It doesn't matter if I was the only one who received it. It's Spam. If it was sent to 10,000 people and I'm the only one who didn't want it, it's Spam to me, but not to the 9,999 other folks who wanted it. So Spam is 'personal'. My Spam is not necessarily your Spam. To make it so would be unconstitutional to say the least. So I stick to my definition of Spam as being "unwanted email." It's just that simple and there is no need to complicate it in an effort to address it as a problem. The issue as I see is how do I stop getting these "unwanted email" messages from getting in my inbox. Using the 80-20 rule, if one were to inhibit 'unsolicited bulk commercial email' from being sent out over the Internet, we'd address the problem 80% of the time. That's a great start to addressing my desire to eliminate "unwanted email' messages from cluttering my inbox and reducing my productivity not to mention my usage of disk space and Internet connect time when traveling. I use 'unsolicited' because if I allow a direct marketer to send me email then that's ok, it's not Spam. And I believe the vast majority of email users would concur. In opposition to what is stated below, all 'bulk' email is not Spam. My e-journals and this mailing list are not considered Spam. It just doesn't make sense in a market economy to cut off the ability to contact willing individuals en masse to entice them to buy something. Otherwise we'd be eliminating billboards, direct mail, tv commercials, etc. The issue is really to protect the rights of those individuals who don't want to be contacted. And now it's time to slay the 'unsolicited bulk commercial email' dragon..... Howard Roth -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Barry Shein Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:20 PM To: hroth@tngi.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Something which keeps coming up in these definitional attempts is that we seem to go around and around spam as being a personal and/or group experience. "Bulk" is a group experience, I only know it is "bulk" because a lot of other people received it. When I look at one msg on the screen I have no idea if anyone else received it. "Unsolicited" is a personal experience. You may've signed up for information about body part enlargement, and I haven't, doesn't matter if it's bulk, for me it's spam, for you it isn't (using the common definitions of this group, forget my more draconian definitions for the moment), same msg, same sender. And of course when people talk about "unwanted" they mostly are in the realm of personal experience, somewhere along one's outrage scale. I once termed this "solicitations for products I certainly don't want anyone else to think I requested!" I know, dialectic can be tedious; it's more fun to just charge forward and begin slaying the dragon. But I think we're rushing headlong into semantics and definitions w/o a lot of (disciplined) thought. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 06:30:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16464 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56ATcc10330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:29:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ATcB10327 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:29:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16440; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OERf-0000IF-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:27:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OERf-0000IC-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:27:39 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ARZB10266; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:27:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56APBB10187 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:25:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16334 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OENN-0000H6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:23:13 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OENL-0000H3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:23:11 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 40 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:38:54 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: Subject: RE: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h56APBB10188 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:27:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Sorry to chip in but I can't help it, this discussion about the meaning of words is strangely compelling! Here goes my 2c.. > I don't think there needs to be a special definition for 'bulk' other than > it constitutes more than one, as most people should agree with. IMHO Spam isn't defined by quantity but by whether or not you want or expect to receive it. However it has become a serious problem because of the quantity. Any definition of spam should not include any reference to quantity. Any definition of the problem would address the issues raised by spam being sent in quantity. If I sent a single mail offering any of you cheap viagra that would be a single mail, still spam and an annoyance, but not really a serious problem. It would cease to be spam if you now ask me to send it, as the process of your asking for it makes it appropriate for me to send it. As far as permission to send me mail, that is implicitly granted to many people, often restricted to on-topic content, but very often not explicitly solicited. A mail from this list (generally solicited) offering me cheap viagra is spam because it is off-topic. The only certainty is that spam is unwanted. This is a subjective decision by the recipient and would require different rules for everyone. However systems already exist which can learn sophisticated behaviour for filtering mail from group or individual accounts. The process of defining the problem shouldn't be influenced by preconceptions about the possible answer, just because "unwanted" cannot be reduce to a series of general logical rules and encapsulated in an algorithm and used to solve our problem doesn't mean that "unwanted" is not the correct definition of spam. I would contend that rather than "Unsolicited Bulk Email" spam is quite simply "Unwanted email" where "unwanted" is mail with inappropriate content. By which definition unsolicited mail from friends or colleagues is not spam, but off topic mail being relayed by list servers to which you have subscribed is. I don't think automation is relevant to the definition of spam, it may be a fact that spam is sent by automated systems but that doesn't define spam it merely exacerbates the problem of quantity by making it easier to deliver large quantities. Which brings me to the definition of quantity. If you only mean more than one why look for more impressive words when you can say "multiple"? "Multiple Unwanted Emails" as in "Our users' inboxes are filling with multiple unwanted emails" If you mean a distinct single item containing a quantity of undifferentiated material say "bulk", a single mail with many recipients is a (singular) bulk mail, as in "Their servers were used to transmit bulk unwanted email". The phrase "Break-of-bulk point"[1] means the point (often at the interface between transports) at which a single bulk is split into its constituent parts, or sub-divided into smaller bulks for forward transport. To my mind this is exactly the way in which a single email with multiple recipients is handled by SMTP, therefore bulk is a reasonable term to use for this kind of mail, but is more narrowly defined than "multiple" or "in bulk". If you mean many similar individual items being handled in quantity say "in bulk" as in: "Our servers have been indiscriminately relaying unwanted email in bulk". SMTP applies this idea where MTA's collect mail for a single destination together and transport it in bulk in a single session. A system sending a single mail addressed to many users on another system or many other systems is sending a bulk email. A system sending mail in quantity to users on another system or many other systems is sending email in bulk. A system sending many individual emails to many individual users on many other systems, but few are using the same transport at the same time, is sending multiple emails. Spam, from the POV of the sender is therefore "Multiple Unwanted Emails", and may at the same time also be "Bulk Unwanted Email" or "Unwanted Email in Bulk". From the POV of thresholds you want to identify unwanted email being sent in bulk or individual bulks, to efficiently stop this mail before the bulk is broken, and the horse has bolted. Spam from the POV of the individual recipient is unwanted but probably not "bulk" or "in bulk" by the time it arrives, generally you will only receive one copy of each mail, but it may be "multiple" if you receive many different unsolicited emails. Spam from the POV of intermediate transports could be all of bulk, in-bulk and multiple, and it would be hard for the intermediate transport to make a decision about wanted or unwanted by the recipient. d. [1]From geography, with heavy emphasis on the port connection ;-)... (http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/gloss/b.html) Break-of-bulk point: The location (usually a port) where a shipment is divided into parts. This usually (such as at the port) happens where a transfer of the shipment between transport modes occurs, such as between water and land at a port. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 07:33:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18252 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56BX2R14692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:33:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56BX2B14689 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:33:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18245; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OFR5-0000oI-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:31:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OFR5-0000oF-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:31:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56BVMB14640; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:31:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56BUgB14589 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:30:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18227 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OFOp-0000o9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:28:47 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OFOo-0000nt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:28:46 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 94 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:44:28 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h56BUgB14590 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:33:27 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi again, In fact to reply to my own message, and distill my thoughts somewhat, I think it is valid to define unwanted email (and so Spam) as "email which is destined to be deleted by the intended recipient unread" Using this definition in place of "spam" we can say the following, which I believe is a fair precis of the main thrust of the issue, and hence validates this definition.. The problem of spam can be defined as one of scale, simply put the quantity of "email which is destined to be deleted by the intended recipient unread" is a significant drain on the resources of transport, user account providers, and individual mail clients. It is a problem for users as a large quantity of "email which is destined to be deleted by the intended recipient unread" can obscure legitimate traffic. A sucesful widespread strategy will depend largely upon the widespread identification of "email which is destined to be deleted by the intended recipient unread" as near to it's source as is possible, perferably at the first outbound gateway, ideally early in (or even before)the transport protocol process, thus preventing it from traveling further downstream consuming resources. The current de-facto solution includes many distinct parts from the identification and rejection of "email which is destined to be deleted by the intended recipient unread" by MTA's through to personalised filtering of "email which is destined to be deleted by the intended recipient unread" on user accounts and in email client software. d. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Danny > Angus > Sent: 06 June 2003 11:28 > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 > > > Hi, > > Sorry to chip in but I can't help it, this discussion about the > meaning of words is strangely compelling! > Here goes my 2c.. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 08:27:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19695 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56CQtB18618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:26:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56CQtB18615 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:26:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19684; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:26:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OGHD-00018d-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:24:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OGHC-00018a-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:24:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56CPEB18524; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:25:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56CMMB18438 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:22:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19582 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OGCo-00016Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:20:26 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OGCn-00016Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:20:25 -0400 Received: from garbagedump.com ([24.128.102.183]) by mxsmta03.dellhost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030606122350.QVOT28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:23:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3EE0877E.4070707@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030525 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Danny Angus CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:22:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just to add my two cents. This is startting to sound like one of my classes on philosophy - the instructor asked us to describe a chair. Obviously you know one when you see it but finding the essence is almost impossible. Spam is commercial speech delivered via email. Does a subscription email list fall into this category - it may or may not - it depends on the purpose of the list. I want to know what person thinks CNN "event" notification isn't commercial speech - CNN is in business to make money. They may do it as a service but the purpose is to get you to view CNN when you want news. On the other hand a mail from EFF isn't commercial speech (though I bet the Supreme Court might think differently about it). Like Danny I don't think "bulk" adds into the equation at all. About the only place it might enter is in the ISP that provides the bandwidth to the spammers. Chuck Wegrzyn Danny Angus wrote: >Hi, > >Sorry to chip in but I can't help it, this discussion about the meaning of words is strangely compelling! >Here goes my 2c.. > > > >>I don't think there needs to be a special definition for 'bulk' other than >>it constitutes more than one, as most people should agree with. >> >> > >IMHO Spam isn't defined by quantity but by whether or not you want or expect to receive it. However it has become a serious problem because of the quantity. > >Any definition of spam should not include any reference to quantity. >Any definition of the problem would address the issues raised by spam being sent in quantity. >If I sent a single mail offering any of you cheap viagra that would be a single mail, still spam and an annoyance, but not really a serious problem. It would cease to be spam if you now ask me to send it, as the process of your asking for it makes it appropriate for me to send it. > >As far as permission to send me mail, that is implicitly granted to many people, often restricted to on-topic content, but very often not explicitly solicited. A mail from this list (generally solicited) offering me cheap viagra is spam because it is off-topic. > >The only certainty is that spam is unwanted. This is a subjective decision by the recipient and would require different rules for everyone. However systems already exist which can learn sophisticated behaviour for filtering mail from group or individual accounts. > >The process of defining the problem shouldn't be influenced by preconceptions about the possible answer, just because "unwanted" cannot be reduce to a series of general logical rules and encapsulated in an algorithm and used to solve our problem doesn't mean that "unwanted" is not the correct definition of spam. > >I would contend that rather than "Unsolicited Bulk Email" spam is quite simply "Unwanted email" where "unwanted" is mail with inappropriate content. By which definition unsolicited mail from friends or colleagues is not spam, but off topic mail being relayed by list servers to which you have subscribed is. > >I don't think automation is relevant to the definition of spam, it may be a fact that spam is sent by automated systems but that doesn't define spam it merely exacerbates the problem of quantity by making it easier to deliver large quantities. > >Which brings me to the definition of quantity. If you only mean more than one why look for more impressive words when you can say "multiple"? "Multiple Unwanted Emails" as in "Our users' inboxes are filling with multiple unwanted emails" > >If you mean a distinct single item containing a quantity of undifferentiated material say "bulk", a single mail with many recipients is a (singular) bulk mail, as in "Their servers were used to transmit bulk unwanted email". >The phrase "Break-of-bulk point"[1] means the point (often at the interface between transports) at which a single bulk is split into its constituent parts, or sub-divided into smaller bulks for forward transport. >To my mind this is exactly the way in which a single email with multiple recipients is handled by SMTP, therefore bulk is a reasonable term to use for this kind of mail, but is more narrowly defined than "multiple" or "in bulk". > >If you mean many similar individual items being handled in quantity say "in bulk" as in: "Our servers have been indiscriminately relaying unwanted email in bulk". >SMTP applies this idea where MTA's collect mail for a single destination together and transport it in bulk in a single session. > >A system sending a single mail addressed to many users on another system or many other systems is sending a bulk email. >A system sending mail in quantity to users on another system or many other systems is sending email in bulk. >A system sending many individual emails to many individual users on many other systems, but few are using the same transport at the same time, is sending multiple emails. > >Spam, from the POV of the sender is therefore "Multiple Unwanted Emails", and may at the same time also be "Bulk Unwanted Email" or "Unwanted Email in Bulk". > >>From the POV of thresholds you want to identify unwanted email being sent in bulk or individual bulks, to efficiently stop this mail before the bulk is broken, and the horse has bolted. > >Spam from the POV of the individual recipient is unwanted but probably not "bulk" or "in bulk" by the time it arrives, generally you will only receive one copy of each mail, but it may be "multiple" if you receive many different unsolicited emails. > >Spam from the POV of intermediate transports could be all of bulk, in-bulk and multiple, and it would be hard for the intermediate transport to make a decision about wanted or unwanted by the recipient. > >d. > >[1]From geography, with heavy emphasis on the port connection ;-)... (http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/gloss/b.html) Break-of-bulk point: The location (usually a port) where a shipment is divided into parts. This usually (such as at the port) happens where a transfer of the shipment between transport modes occurs, such as between water and land at a port. > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 09:16:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22318 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56DGCh22589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:16:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DGCB22586 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:16:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22294; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OH2t-0001tK-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:14:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OH2s-0001tH-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:14:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DEbB22517; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:14:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DDaB22465 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:13:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22243 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OH0N-0001rz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:11:39 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OH0M-0001rw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:11:38 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h56DDV5W009669 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:13:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306061313.h56DDV5W009669@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 References: <16096.5737.753964.940754@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:13:31 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > Something which keeps coming up in these definitional attempts is that > we seem to go around and around spam as being a personal and/or group > experience. > > "Bulk" is a group experience, I only know it is "bulk" because a lot > of other people received it. When I look at one msg on the screen I > have no idea if anyone else received it. Bulk is a group thing, but the last sentence of that paragraph is not right. Given a single message, you practically always know whether it was bulk. If it is bulk it will almost always say so in the text with something about unsubscribing, not being addressed to you properly, containing "hash busters" in the Subject or body, having obscured URLs, and so forth. In the rare cases where the text does indicate that it is bulk, you can ask a DCC or Vipul's Razor client or Google on NANAS. System operators can often detect "bulk" by the flood of double bounces in a postmaster mailbox and other signs. > "Unsolicited" is a personal experience. You may've signed up for > information about body part enlargement, and I haven't, doesn't matter > if it's bulk, for me it's spam, for you it isn't (using the common > definitions of this group, forget my more draconian definitions for > the moment), same msg, same sender. That is certainly true. > ... > I know, dialectic can be tedious; it's more fun to just charge forward > and begin slaying the dragon. But I think we're rushing headlong into > semantics and definitions w/o a lot of (disciplined) thought. I'd phrase that as rushing headlong into the lexicography or even language invention business without pausing to consider purposes and goals. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 09:40:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23224 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56DdoK24531 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:39:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DdoB24528 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:39:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23206; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHPk-00028f-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:37:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHPj-00028c-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:37:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DcVB24485; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:38:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DbcB24250 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:37:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23108 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHNc-000277-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:35:40 -0400 Received: from tarbolton.demon.co.uk ([212.229.119.215] helo=killerbees.co.uk) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHNa-000274-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:35:39 -0400 Received: from mailtest ([192.168.0.2]) by killerbees.co.uk (JAMES SMTP Server 3.0a1) with SMTP ID 90 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:51:19 +0100 (BST) From: "Danny Angus" To: "Asrg@Ietf. Org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3EE0877E.4070707@garbagedump.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h56DbcB24251 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:40:18 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Chuck, > Obviously you know one when you see it but finding the essence is almost > impossible. "The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages" Thats the important point, there is a definition encapsulated there, and there does need to be a concrete definition of spam or any resulting paper using the term will be based upon an ambiguous initial assumption, and open to misinterpretation. I believe that my second, refined, definition is clear enough to provide a working definition which can be used to unambiguously "understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem." > Spam is commercial speech delivered via email. Not that alone, it is also primarily unwanted, and as you point out later may be of another class than commercial. > Does a subscription email > list fall into this category - it may or may not - it depends on the > purpose of the list. And whether or not the recipients want to receive it. If I sign up for a product download and provide my address I may then receive unexpected security notifications, this may be unsolicited but welcome, and hence not spam. > I want to know what person thinks CNN "event" > notification isn't commercial speech - CNN is in business to make money. Assume no one, but it isn't spam if people want to receive them. > On the other hand a mail from EFF isn't commercial > speech I expect the EFF's mailings would be considered political and if they are unwanted they'll be political spam. At any rate we agree that spam probably isn't personal. d. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 09:55:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23648 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56Dsb525235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:54:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DsbB25232 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:54:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23643; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHe2-0002Fy-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:52:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHe2-0002Fv-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:52:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DrBB25094; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:53:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DjvB24764 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:45:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23355 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHVf-0002BF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:43:59 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHVd-0002BC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:43:58 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h56Djhxg013344 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:45:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306061345.h56Djhxg013344@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 References: <3EE0877E.4070707@garbagedump.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:45:43 -0600 (MDT) > Spam is commercial speech delivered via email. That all too popular but unthinking definition outlaws a lot of mail that people want to receive. Then there is the practical impossibility of using computers to do anything to control commercial speech. Besides that, no thinking ISP or system operator wants to get involved in deciding whether a given bulk spew of messages is commercial, religious, political, or some other catagory that is or is not allowed to be bulk. > Like Danny I don't think "bulk" adds into the equation at all. About the > only place it might enter is in the ISP that provides the bandwidth to > the spammers. Objectionable mail that is not "bulk" does not cause problems that the IETF/IRTF needs or ought to consider. Threats, child pornography, chitchat about terrorism, drugs, unsanctioned political ideas, or any other sort of objectionable mail can be handled by the same mechanisms that deal with the same messages on paper. There is nothing the IRTF/IETF can or should do about them, with the possible exception of efforts like Fred Baker's Internet-Draft about wiretapping at routers. Those recent contributions disagreeing with defining spam as unsolicited bulk email do point out that any definition of "spam" is likely to be hopelessly controversial among the general public, and suggest that this group should concentrate on "consent" and "unsolicited bulk email" without worrying about "spam." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 10:29:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25906 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56ET2B27821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:29:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ET2B27818 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:29:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25898; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:28:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OIBL-0002Wl-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:27:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OIBK-0002Wi-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:27:02 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56EObB27673; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:24:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ENpB27619 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:23:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25773 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OI6K-0002Ve-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:21:52 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OI6J-0002VX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:21:51 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [63.210.23.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id AA37613B75; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A3D15900CE; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:23:13 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Tony Hansen" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3EDEA101.9070502@att.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:25:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow, Tony! Thanks. We will proceed accordingly. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Tony > Hansen > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:47 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >> > ... > >> > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an > >> RFC 2822 > >> > registration process that I am aware of. > >> > >> See draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-06.txt > > > > Currently, isn't it enough just to define a header in an RFC? This has > > been done for a number of headers. > > Yes, that's all that should be needed: write an internet-draft defining > the new header and get it published as an RFC. If msghdr-registry gets > published as an RFC before this new I-D gets published as an RFC, then > the new I-D will also need to have an appropriate IANA Considerations > section that directs IANA to add the new header to the header registry. > > Tony Hansen > tony@att.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 10:30:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25974 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56EUJR27927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:30:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56EUJB27924 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:30:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25953; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OICa-0002X6-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:28:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OICZ-0002X3-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:28:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ER0B27754; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:27:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ENpB27620 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:23:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25775 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OI6K-0002Vc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:21:52 -0400 Received: from [66.77.68.8] (helo=mailgate.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OI6J-0002VW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:21:51 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [63.210.23.8]) by mailgate.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 79EBC13AFC; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A3D15900CE; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:23:13 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Eric D. Williams" , "Yakov Shafranovich" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <01C32AF1.3E0955F0.eric@infobro.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:25:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I hope I am not belaboring the point but at this stage if we > focus more on the > research aspect of the problems the set of solutions that are > viable should/may > become more apparent. So instead of attempting to prove the > solution perhaps > at this stage it is better to 'test' the approach to a solution > in theory and > provide provable research conclusions that support the goals of > the approach. > Just a thought. I agree. In fact, we should have two CRI systems available shortly for testing. I've just been trying to figure out which headers we should implement. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 10:53:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26908 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56ErR930058 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:53:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ErQB30055 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:53:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26897; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:53:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OIYx-0002jv-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:51:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OIYx-0002js-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:51:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56EmRB29845; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:48:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56El9B29780 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:47:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26668 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OISs-0002gk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:45:10 -0400 Received: from d2cspimg001.smartpipes.com ([63.89.185.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OISr-0002gP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:45:09 -0400 Received: by D2CSPIMG001.smartpipes.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:46:27 -0000 Message-ID: <4652644B98DFF34696801F8F3070D3FE041D0F2F@D2CSPEXM001.smartpipes.com> From: "Beadles, Mark A" To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:46:26 -0000 >From: "Peter Kay" Amplifying on Vernon's comments, and an observation of my own concerning "intent" as an element of a spam definition. Re: > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a > primarily automated process. This definition would include any use of Cc: (or indeed 2 or more To: recipients) as "bulk email". Use of multiple recipients or cc: results in the transmission of 2 or more emails, one to each recipient, through a primarily automated process. The problem is the fuzziness of the noun "email". How do you "count" emails? From a sender's point of view, one email is sent. From the recipients' aggregate points of view, multiple emails are received. Any definition of spam that would include a normal message cc'ed to one other person is broken. > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email Also, regarding "unsolicited": there are shades of gray there. A government representative/parliament member/etc. may by default be assumed to have solicited emails from any member of his/her consistuency (without having to individually consent to/solicit transmissions from each consistuent). This does not mean they also have by default solicited advertisements for growth creams. Similar examples would be a newspaper editorial desk or a commercial complaints department. These recipients could be assumed to have solicited email from any sender, and in the case of the editorial desk, on any subject, but again, this does not mean that all emails whatsoever have been solicited. ***** A good criteria for "what is spam" would seem in my opinion to be based on the _intent_ of the sender. This is of course an elusive thing to measure via protocol or filtering rules. Intent is often measured by other non-human systems using techniques such as: * Heuristics (which could be implemented at sender, relay, or recipient) which gauge intent and apply filtering, marking or classification * Improved human-computer interaction at the sender, which measures intent of the sender interactively * Imposing some form of cost (not necessarily financial) upon the sender, causing the sender to self-impose heuristics related to intent One issue with the above techniques is that access to raw SMTP allows some of the above to be bypassed (notably any measures taken within the sender's client). However, measures implemented within the relay or at the recipient end, as well as certain cost-based measures, could still be quite effective at measuring intent. + Mark Anthony Beadles + mbeadles@smartpipes.com + + Chief Architect + SmartPipes, Inc. + + Vox 614.923.5657 + Fax 614.923.6299 + _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 13:20:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03149 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56HK2K11549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:20:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56HK2B11546 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:20:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03139; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKqq-0004Ly-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:18:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKqp-0004Lv-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:18:03 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56HEaB11253; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:14:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56H9NB11022 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:09:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02626 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKgX-0004E4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:07:25 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OKgV-0004Dw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:07:24 -0400 Message-Id: To: From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:09:11 -0700 At 03:22 PM 6/5/03 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 10:52 AM -0400 6/5/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since that is >>the mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" >>addresses that is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, >>rather it indicates a mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It >>is perfectly legal and sometimes even recommended in RFC 2821 to use >><> for the MAIL FROM. > >Are you advocating that C/R systems send mail to the From: address >rather than MAIL FROM? That strikes me as exceedingly wrong. MAIL >FROM is for notification of delivery problems--and that's exactly >what C/R is. Furthermore, we've seen on this list what happens when >a C/R system sends to From: instead of MAIL FROM--everyone who posts >to the list gets challenged by the person who forgot to whitelist the >mailing list. This is the "On Vacation" message problem all over >again. > There are basically two choices; Envelope from a.k.a. MAIL FROM, and Reply-To: (or From: if there's no Reply-To:) If you view a challenge as a DSN then envelope from is the proper choice. I'd even go so far as to format the challenge as an RFC 1894 compliant DSN. (This has the interesting side effect that challenging a mailing list is likely to unsubscribe you automatically) And like any DSN, I recommend including the message-id in the In-Reply-To: and Reference: headers. If however, you view a challenge as a new message, then sending it to the Reply-To: (or From: if there is no Reply-To:) is the more logical choice. Personally I feel that challenges are DSNs, so envelope from is the right choice, but I can see the "new message" point of view too. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 14:04:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05083 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56I3bU15481 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:03:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56I3bB15478 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:03:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05073; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLWz-0004vR-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:01:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLWy-0004vO-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:01:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56HxnB15274; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:59:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56Hu2B15002 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:56:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04684 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLPd-0004o7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:54:01 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLPb-0004o4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:53:59 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:56:02 -0700 At 04:04 PM 6/5/03 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >> >> Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining >> offenses. Let's first define the offense of "spam" and then >> decide how to approximately characterize it for our stupid >> computers. Let's also be entirely clear when we are talking >> about spam and when we are talking about whatever our >> computers can detect or defend against. >> > >Isn't that what we're trying to do? Did I miss something? Aren't we >trying to define what is spam and what is not? Or is the definition of >an "offense" something else entirely. > Yes, you missed something. The question is; "Are we trying to decide what spam is supposed to mean, or are we trying to redefine spam as 'the class of emails that we can do something about'?". I think Vernon's point was that we should clearly delineate the two. For example, IMO Spam is excessive unwanted email, not unsolicited bulk. But most use the term "unsolicited" because "unwanted" is such a fuzzy concept. To my way of thinking, "unsolicited" is the just the best test we can apply to determine if an email is in the class of things we can do something about. So we filter UBE because it's much easier to understand what that should do, and how to do it. "Spam" isn't "UBE" exactly, (though there's a lot of overlap), and the concept is "don't try and claim UBE is the definition of spam, but rather, say we're going after UBE which is close enough to what most people think of as spam that it's good enough". Bulk is also a fuzzy concept. But just because there are shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white. Rather than defining the line, we could define the gray area. I.e. 1000 or more is bulk. 1 or less is not. Between 1 and 1000 may or may not be bulk, but the dividing line requires human judgement and depends on circumstances, so we're not going be any more precise than that. In my experience, this sort of "fuzzy area" definition is accepted immediately by spam fighters, though they question if we can't be less generous and reduce the number to say 100, or maybe even 20. But it's completely unacceptable to spammer fighters. Just suggesting it can polarize the group and ultimately result in one camp storming off. I fear nothing good will come of this thread. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 14:27:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06185 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56IQsd17681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:26:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56IQrB17678 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:26:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06176; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:26:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLtU-0005Bu-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:24:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLtT-0005Br-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:24:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56ILnB17405; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:21:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56IJ2B17250 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:19:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05801 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLlt-00056B-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:17:01 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OLlq-00055k-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:16:59 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AB409A6008A; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:19:44 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:22:52 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C32C57.FFA95F4B" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: now we're on stage Thread-Index: AcMsWFuS4yNsohBxSbSzk0wrufsXgg== From: "Peter Kay" To: Subject: [Asrg] now we're on stage Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:18:15 -1000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C32C57.FFA95F4B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This article: =20 http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/05/cx_mh_0605spam.html?partner=3Dnewscom =20 talks about this group and cites a few of the list participants including Paul Judge and Andrew Barrett. Man, I'm really glad Forbes doesn't monitor this list. I'd hate to see an article saying that the spam research group can't even agree on what spam is. =20 But I guess that's what research is all about, isn't it? =20 =20 Peter Kay President TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com =20 The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C32C57.FFA95F4B Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

This=20 article:
 
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/05/cx_mh_0605spam.html?partner=3Dnew= scom
 
talks = about this=20 group and cites a few of the list participants including Paul Judge=20 and Andrew Barrett.  Man, I'm really glad Forbes doesn't = monitor this=20 list. I'd hate to see an article saying that the spam research group = can't even=20 agree on what spam is.
 
But I = guess that's=20 what research is all about, isn't it?
 
 
Peter=20 Kay
President
TitanKey=20 Software
Web: = www.titankey.com
The = only technology=20 that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent
 
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C32C57.FFA95F4B-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 15:07:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08072 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56J7Q221169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:07:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56J7QB21166 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:07:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07961; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:07:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OMWi-0005Ww-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 15:05:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OMWh-0005Ws-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 15:05:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56J32B20307; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:03:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56J1XB20244 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:01:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07467 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OMR1-0005Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:59:31 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OMR0-0005Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:59:30 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABD19609; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-215-99.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.215.99]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AHY99803; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Message-ID: <003301c32c5e$06a747c0$6901a8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h56J1XB20245 Subject: [Asrg] Forbes Survey of Anti-Spam methods and products Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:01:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FYI: Forbes has a fairly detailed article surveying Anti-Spam methods and products: Kill Spam With Your Own Two Hands By Stephen Manes, 06.23.03, 12:00 AM ET http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0623/136.html The author proposes: "A free one, as implemented by the editor of this magazine: Give your correspondents a password to include in the subject line of messages. Then use your e-mail software's filters to trash any message that both lacks the password and comes from a sender not in your address book. It costs not a sou, and it works--if you don't mind missing greetings from old schoolmates, alerts from online vendors and entreaties from offspring who forget the code. " Note: The method of having groups vote on what is and is not spam, which he claims is used by Cloudmark SpamNet and Matador, may be an infringement or use of US patent 6,453,327 issued to Jakob Nielsen (otherwise famous for "usability research). See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6453327 bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 16:16:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10970 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56KFdm26128 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:15:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56KFdB26125 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:15:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10965; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ONan-00063c-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:13:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ONam-00063Z-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:13:40 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56KDZB26026; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:13:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56K6bB24852 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:06:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10585 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ONS3-0005wl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:04:39 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ONS1-0005wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:04:39 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19ONTl-00023C-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:06:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 To: "Scott Nelson" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.5] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 12.81.70.253 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:06:25 +0100 > > I fear nothing good will come of this thread. > I think you're probably right. Maybe chair should outlaw this topic. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 19:02:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17740 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56N2Ns05751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56N2MB05748 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17711; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQC6-0007Ky-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:00:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQC5-0007Kv-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:00:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56MldB05344; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:47:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56MkBB05306 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:46:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17457 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OPwR-0007GM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:44:11 -0400 Received: from mail2.asahi-net.or.jp ([202.224.39.198] helo=mail.asahi-net.or.jp) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OPwQ-0007GJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:44:10 -0400 Received: from nv6881 (j104186.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [61.213.104.186]) by mail.asahi-net.or.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FF536E66 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:46:03 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <00cb01c32c7d$64a401f0$0301a8c0@nv6881> From: "Shannon Jacobs" To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030527103413.027cd068@controller1.ukerna.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: What are your criteria for the end of spam? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 07:45:55 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rodney Tillotson wrote: > At 26/05/2003 07:02 +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote: A few hundred messages later (on 7 June)... First, a meta-observation. As I've already remarked, the volume of traffic here reminds me of the volume of spam one of my old spamified email accounts received. Yes, there is an actual signal here, but there's also a lot of noise and fury. Observation 1: The sheer volume of ASRG email makes it essentially impossible for people without a whole lot of time to participate effectively. Conclusion 1: The discussions tend to be dominated by a few people with lots of time. Maybe they'll cover all the bases, but I doubt it. In particular, those few people are apparently uninterested in economics, and I remain convinced that the heart of the spam problem is economic. As long as the spammers can dream up new get-rich-quick schemes, they will continue trying to devise new ways to break any system. (However, I do like several aspects of the RMX and TitanKey C/R systems.) Observation 2: The essential independence of email messages results in lots of quoting. Conclusion 2: That increases the redundancy, increases the volume, and makes the situation worse, and suggests that email is a poor tool for this job. Now I'm going to flog those dead old economic issues again... >> 1) We want to be informed of the best values. >> 2) We don't want to give up our privacy. >> 3) Companies compete to create the best values. >> 4) Email could help customers find the best values. > > If (1,4) _I_ want to be informed, _I_ go and do something about > it. I opt IN to a few things (even the ASRG list ...). I don't > want to be informed of stuff on the basis of someone else's > values. Very good point, which I why I think the recipient should set the values and the advertisers should pay up or go away. However, on additional reflection, the problem seems very intractable because my value for information changes all the time. Concrete example with "me" as the email recipient and "you" as the advertiser with a car to sell: When I am not interested in buying a new car, I do not want to receive car ads, and I'd want to charge you a lot of money if you insist on my seeing your ad. In that state of mind, I'm also a bad prospect, and so you would be wasting your money to pay for me to see the ad. The obvious conclusion is that you won't bother me, but will spend your advertising money to reach a more likely prospect. It's actually pretty simple statistics. You compare the negative and positive expectations. The cost of sending email is a negative expectation, while the positive expectation is the profit from the sale times the (small) probability that I will actually buy it from you. Arbitrary example, but suppose I charge you $10 to read your email, the profit from the sale is $500, and the probability for my type of customer is 1%. You'd have to email 100 such customers to make one $500 sale, but the cost would be $1,000 (100x$10), so rationally, you won't do it. (Of course the spammers think of 0 as the cost, so any positive expectation, no matter how small, apparently justifies their spamming.) However, if I actually am interested in buying a new car, the situation is very different, and I actually would highly value receiving your email. It might save me a lot of money if you really are offering the best deal. Even if you aren't offering the best deal, you would be providing data that would help me recognize the best deal. If I've moved into a category with a 10% probability of buying, then it is very much worth it for you to pay the $10 to reach me. Much more to say on the economic topic, but that's all the time I can spare from my actual life... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 19:02:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17757 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56N2ao05776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56N2aB05773 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17717; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQCJ-0007L7-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:00:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQCI-0007L4-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:00:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56Mm1B05371; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56MlJB05328 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:47:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17465 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:47:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OPxW-0007Gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:45:18 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OPxW-0007GP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:45:18 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:34:49 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Jon Kyme'" , "'Scott Nelson'" Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:34:48 -0400 This topic has been debated on this mailing list at least three times. Each time the debate goes on for days. After a while, we reach consensus but have gained no ground. Please read this carefully from the charter: "The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages," "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires." We could debate the meaning of spam forever. The point here is to generalize to a problem of unwanted communication. This can be framed into a problem of consent-based communication. This allows anyone's interpretation of 'spam' to be expressed and enforced. For example, if someone decides on the definition of 'unsolicited bulk email', this can be expressed and enforced. Additionally, a particular solution may focus on preventing or detecting a certain type of communication. For example, one proposal focuses only on detecting bulk email. Another proposal focuses on detecting solicited email. A different proposal focuses on detecting email with authentic path and sender information. All of these different proposals form part of a consent-based communication system. As a solution is proposed, it should state the classes or types of unwanted messages that it will be effective against. With proper measurement and characterization work, we should be able to understand what percentage of the current spam volume that describes. Additionally, the system must state the assumptions upon which it is based. This allows analysis of the robustness of the system in the face of countermeasures that may reverse these assumptions. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:06 PM > To: Scott Nelson > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 > > > > > > I fear nothing good will come of this thread. > > > > I think you're probably right. Maybe chair should outlaw this topic. > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 19:16:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18027 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56NFof07158 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:15:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56NFoB07155 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:15:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18002; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQPB-0007Qn-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:13:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQPA-0007Qj-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:13:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56N7CB06085; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56N6QB05883 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:06:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17870 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQG1-0007NQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:04:25 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQG0-0007NN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:04:25 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h56N6Dsg018372; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:06:13 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22170; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:06:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16097.7783.474600.591770@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 In-Reply-To: <200306061313.h56DDV5W009669@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <16096.5737.753964.940754@world.std.com> <200306061313.h56DDV5W009669@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:06:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 6, 2003 at 07:13 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > "Bulk" is a group experience, I only know it is "bulk" because a lot > > of other people received it. When I look at one msg on the screen I > > have no idea if anyone else received it. > > Bulk is a group thing, but the last sentence of that paragraph is not > right. Given a single message, you practically always know whether > it was bulk. Replace "know" with "make a pretty good guess" and I'll agree. But that was my point, you can only guess unless you happen to have access to other mailboxes or equivalent (logs etc.) or proceed to resources as you mention to investigate whether this was actually bulk. That it passes the duck test doesn't really matter. E.g., I've been hassled in my life by script kiddies running a bunch of old spam at my mailbox to harass me. That isn't bulk, but at first it looked like it. Ok, I'll agree that most mail that looks like bulk probably is and stop nit-picking, but there's a reason... What I'm trying to say is that the "bulk" aspect isn't all that important when you're fuming at yet another herbal viagra ad on your screen, it's something that happened to you. You'd have the same exact reaction, most likely, if you were the only person on the planet who received that message. So "bulk" is more of a social consciousness observation while "unsolicited" is a personal observation. It's like that movie "Spanish Prisoner" I watched the last third of the other night so might have this slightly wrong. But the main guy is a victim of a rather intricate Spanish Prisoner scam (the Nigerian scams are Spanish Prisoner scams), it's gone way over the edge to the point that he doesn't know who is helping him and who is scamming him right down to his personal friends etc. At one point he's trying to get help from an FBI agent who hears some of his story and looks him square in the eye and says "Made ya feel bad huh?!" in an icy way. And it was clear right there what the agent was saying, that the FBI is NOT in the "made ya feel bad huh?!" business. And that's where we need to find a line if any of this is going to succeed. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 19:20:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18220 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:20:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56NJog07339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:19:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56NJoB07336 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:19:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18135; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:19:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQT3-0007Sb-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:17:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQT2-0007SX-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:17:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56NBwB07031; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:11:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56NBXB06996 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:11:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17966 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:11:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQKy-0007Pg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:09:32 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQKx-0007Pb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:09:31 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (bgb@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h56NBKsg024481; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:11:20 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA24216; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:11:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16097.8092.10826.38579@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 In-Reply-To: <200306061345.h56Djhxg013344@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <3EE0877E.4070707@garbagedump.com> <200306061345.h56Djhxg013344@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:11:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 6, 2003 at 07:45 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > Those recent contributions disagreeing with defining spam as unsolicited > bulk email do point out that any definition of "spam" is likely to be > hopelessly controversial among the general public, and suggest that this > group should concentrate on "consent" and "unsolicited bulk email" without > worrying about "spam." I think it suggests we concentrate on illegal+unethical methods spammers exploit in the hope of at least making them more accountable, as a first project. That's why the whole RMX thing came up. I don't happen to agree that it's very germaine to spamming but I also don't think it's a bad thing either. But it's in the space of fraudulent identity which spammers do exploit, which I think is one reason why it rang true with a lot of people even if (as I fear) it's not all that much help with spam. I think the deep social wisdom that comes through the ages is make them put their name on it and it'll stop. Just don't ask me how. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 21:48:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20944 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h571mQe16995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h571mPB16992 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20932; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSmn-0000Th-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:46:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSmn-0000Td-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:46:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h571k5B16833; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:46:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h571iUB16797 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:44:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20878 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSj0-0000SG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:42:30 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSj0-0000SD-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:42:30 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h571iNS0007803; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:44:23 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11203; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:44:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16097.17271.423185.656043@world.std.com> To: "Shannon Jacobs" Cc: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: What are your criteria for the end of spam? In-Reply-To: <00cb01c32c7d$64a401f0$0301a8c0@nv6881> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030527103413.027cd068@controller1.ukerna.ac.uk> <00cb01c32c7d$64a401f0$0301a8c0@nv6881> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:44:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd be surprised if anyone here doesn't know the "economics" you just managed to spend about 3 pages of text explaining. The basic idea you expressed seems to be repeated in every other article about spam. Tell us what you'd do with these insights instead of telling us yet again that if 1 in 100 people respond to a spam that's a 1% etc., etc. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 6 21:49:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20961 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h571mgV17018 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h571mgB17015 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20940; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSn4-0000Ts-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:46:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSn4-0000Tp-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:46:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h571l2B16897; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:47:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h571kiB16846 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:46:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20890 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSlA-0000Sb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:44:44 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OSl9-0000SX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:44:44 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h571eUNr023133; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306070140.h571eUNr023133@nic-naa.net> To: Barry Shein cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:11:24 EDT." <16097.8092.10826.38579@world.std.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:40:30 -0400 During a conference call (organized by, but not limited to members of, the ICANN Registrar Constituency) today, the second of three prior to the ICANN meeting in Montreal later this month, on the perenial subject of WHOIS:43, through all the usual clutter, one germ fell from the USPTO presentation. A rational for (skip the bogosity of) unrestricted, accurate, and intrusive domain name registrant data being available via whois:43, is timely pursuit of bad actors, who switch servers. This is where I want everyone to pause, and look away from the screen for a heart beat. The temporal properties of bad actors. Their "switching time", their TTL. Bad actors acquire, utilize, and discard interdictable resources to avoid interdiction (or interposition of null service by some service operator). I didn't press the USPTO presenter on the common case inter-provider transition window, but I suspect it -- their "hop time" -- is multi-day. In our (worst) case of robo-spam, the A-U-D sequence has a time horizon that is sub-day, even sub-hour (time for null service to be provided on the serviced receiver-set). Presently, bad actors (trademark and/or copyright infringers) are known to "twinkle" in the DNS (jump from web host to web host) to avoid going dark. The signalling system in place is while (1) { IPR claimant -> Registrar::whois:43 -> web host IPR infringer -> new(web host) && new(DNS) } Wearing a Registrar's hat, it is trivial to insert a wait-bit into the data some DNS publisher might check prior to modifying the mappings for a name, or otherwise interpose a delay service on mapping changes for a domain. Getting the arbitrary DNS provider to check is another problem. This gets the last line to this: IPR infringer -> new(web host) && wait(new(DNS)) Presumably, going "steady" allows the IPR claimant to catch up with the IPR infringer, and allow some administrative, judicial, or extra legal recourse to the claimant, resulting in the infringer going "dark". Getting IPR infringers in the DNS to "go dark" is the big win in that problem domain, and as soon as I heard "switch web host" I was thinking about update timers and how to signal between the DNS provisioning and DNS publication systems. Clearly, this problem is not a superset of the problem space we face here, the domain name, or control of the name-to-address map, is not a transient asset with no inherent value to the bad actor, unlike the name, addr, even host for robo-host spam-streams, this is rather, one of the subsets we do face. I'm going to put this in I-D form, I've got some time on my hands before the ICANN shindig. This note is a FYI that some ID is forthcomming, and if I'm gifted, I'll manage not to mention either "whois" or "spam" at all. Note well: Comments about the brain death of whois, or whois lovers and whois haters is a sure sign of stupidity. Ditto anything about the poor hygine of anything connected with ICANN. The only thing of interest here is the temporal use properties of infrastructure mediated resources by bad actors, who's bad actor model does not allow them to discard a resource and acquire a fungible equivalent. Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 00:08:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23574 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5748LC25139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:08:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5748LB25136 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:08:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23570; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OUyF-00019F-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:06:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OUyF-00019C-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:06:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5746dB24229; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:06:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5745fB24192 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:05:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23554 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OUve-00018v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:03:42 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OUvd-00018r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:03:42 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A36D444009E; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:00:45 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 04:03:56 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMrcsSi9TBGJhinSLGHrjED7WGqLwBNTWMg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Dave Aronson" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5745jB24193 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 17:59:17 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for the clarification. I'm talking about 4.1.1.2 of RFC 2821, "MAIL FROM". "The reverse-path consists of the sender mailbox." What I'm saying is that because some CR systems do not set the MAIL FROM to be the sender mailbox, some CR systems cannot interoperate because of the reasons stated earlier in this thread. All I'm saying is that for good CRI, the MAIL FROM should be that of the sender's mailbox. > Careful perusal of the relevant RFCs shows that there are differences > between these fields. Section 3.6.2 of RFC 2822, > distinguishes between > various "sender" fields: > > o "The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message, > that is, the > mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the > writing of > the message." > o "The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent > responsible for > the actual transmission of the message. " > o "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the > mailbox(es) to > which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent." > > The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since > that is the > mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" > addresses that > is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, rather it > indicates a > mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It is perfectly legal and > sometimes even recommended in RFC 2821 to use <> for the MAIL FROM. > > Yakov > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------- > Yakov Shafranovich / > SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------- > "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps > his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 00:27:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23961 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h574REp25600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:27:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h574REB25597 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:27:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23952; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OVGW-0001DO-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:25:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OVGV-0001DL-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:25:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h574Q6B25572; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:26:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h574PKB25550 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:25:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23947 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 00:25:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OVEg-0001DB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:23:22 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OVEf-0001Cx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:23:21 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A96A464009E; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:26:18 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 04:29:30 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <39c573a1-d495-45ce-9235-9cae797e33ee> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMsV5pTm43GnNrmTHCfkHLoEJHQqAAVS6nQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Scott Nelson" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h574PLB25551 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:24:52 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I agree, a challenge can be seen as a DSN or a new message. My point is that in either case, the MAIL FROM or REPLYTO should be consistent with the challenger's email address, otherwise 2 C/R systems will challenge each other's challenge. > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Nelson [mailto:scott@spamwolf.com] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 7:09 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework > > > At 03:22 PM 6/5/03 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >At 10:52 AM -0400 6/5/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>The "FROM" field is the one that will get C/R checked, since that is > >>the mailbox that sent the email. Additionally, the "MAIL FROM" > >>addresses that is used in SMTP is not intended to this purpose, > >>rather it indicates a mailbox to which errors should be sent to. It > >>is perfectly legal and sometimes even recommended in RFC > 2821 to use > >><> for the MAIL FROM. > > > >Are you advocating that C/R systems send mail to the From: address > >rather than MAIL FROM? That strikes me as exceedingly wrong. MAIL > >FROM is for notification of delivery problems--and that's exactly > >what C/R is. Furthermore, we've seen on this list what happens when > >a C/R system sends to From: instead of MAIL FROM--everyone who posts > >to the list gets challenged by the person who forgot to > whitelist the > >mailing list. This is the "On Vacation" message problem all over > >again. > > > > There are basically two choices; > Envelope from a.k.a. MAIL FROM, and > Reply-To: (or From: if there's no Reply-To:) > > > If you view a challenge as a DSN then envelope from is the proper > choice. I'd even go so far as to format the challenge as an > RFC 1894 compliant DSN. (This has the interesting side effect > that challenging a mailing list is likely to unsubscribe you > automatically) And like any DSN, I recommend including the > message-id in the In-Reply-To: and Reference: headers. > > If however, you view a challenge as a new message, > then sending it to the Reply-To: (or From: if there is no Reply-To:) > is the more logical choice. > > Personally I feel that challenges are DSNs, so envelope from > is the right choice, but I can see the "new message" > point of view too. > > > Scott Nelson > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 14:25:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17746 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h57IOib18221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:24:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57IOiB18218 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:24:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17732; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiKw-0004z2-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiKw-0004yz-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57IMnB18148; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:22:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57ILWB18108 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:21:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17697 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiHr-0004yN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:19:31 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiHq-0004yK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:19:30 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:21:38 -0700 At 06:24 PM 6/6/03 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >I agree, a challenge can be seen as a DSN or a new message. My point is >that in either case, the MAIL FROM or REPLYTO should be consistent with >the challenger's email address, otherwise 2 C/R systems will challenge >each other's challenge. > If you're sending a DSN, then the From: header could be your address, but the MAIL FROM should probably be <>. That prevents a lot of bad things from happening. Setting the MAIL FROM to your address means that you could end up challenging a non-existent address, then the mailer_daemon that bounces the mail back to you. If the C/R system was really broken, it could challenge bounces from a non-existent address endlessly, but in the normal case this is only twice as much work as you need to do. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 17:39:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22472 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h57LdQF30531 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:39:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57LdQB30528 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:39:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22453; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OlNN-00064N-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:37:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OlNM-00064K-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:37:24 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57LbUB30465; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:37:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57LaoB29571 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:36:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22423 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OlKq-000642-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:34:48 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.attbi.com ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OlKq-00063r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 17:34:48 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <200306072136100120097o17e>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:36:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200306032333.TAA18571@world.std.com> Message-Id: <0D95322B-9930-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:36:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 19:33 US/Eastern, Barry Shein wrote: > I've been thinking about the various definitions of "spam" and thought > of another criteria which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive but > captures something important: > > Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for > the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving. Yes, this is good. This is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for something to be classed as spam. Perhaps the way to come up with an acceptable definition of spam is to enumerate sufficient conditions, rather than to attempt to encapsulate both necessary and sufficient conditions within a single definition. So... Each of the following conditions is sufficient, but not necessary, for an e-mail to be categorized as spam: - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for the recipient to stop from sending further messages. - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an organization the recipient does not have any prior relationship with. - It is bulk e-mail from an organization the recipient does have a prior relationship with, but the subject matter of the e-mail is outside the scope of subject matter about which the recipient agreed to receive e-mail from the organization. - It is bulk e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not send him any further e-mail. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 18:18:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24341 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h57MICI32290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:18:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MIBB32287 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:18:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24319; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Olyr-0006HG-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:16:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Olyr-0006H9-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:16:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MGBB32220; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:16:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MFTB32196 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:15:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24237 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OlwE-0006GW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:13:26 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com ([204.127.202.62]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OlwE-0006GF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:13:26 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003060722145300200dm8mse>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:14:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <16094.44384.458521.584391@world.std.com> Message-Id: <77412420-9935-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:14:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Jun 4, 2003, at 22:39 US/Eastern, Barry Shein wrote: > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's > just a matter of time. I agree with this too. Of all the options discussed, the only one I see having any chance whatsoever of working is per-message fees, with some method to exempt friends. Right now we have the situation that usage of resources is unconstrained by cost to the person using them. Can anyone think of a system like that which hasn't collapsed under the weight of abuse? mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 18:28:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24599 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h57MS1j32615 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:28:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MS0B32610 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:28:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24584; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Om8M-0006M1-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:25:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Om8M-0006Ly-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:25:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MQDB32571; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:26:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MP3B32528 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:25:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24509 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Om5V-0006Km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:23:01 -0400 Received: from ernie.mail-abuse.org ([204.152.187.84]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Om5U-0006Ki-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:23:00 -0400 Received: from dhcp-195.isc.org (dhcp-195.isc.org [204.152.187.195]) by ernie.mail-abuse.org (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0) with ESMTP id h57MORSK044424 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 15:24:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Margie Arbon Reply-To: Margie Arbon To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Message-ID: <2543267.1054999475@dhcp-195.isc.org> In-Reply-To: <0D95322B-9930-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> References: <0D95322B-9930-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 15:24:35 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:36 PM -0400 mathew wrote: > - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for the > recipient to stop from sending further messages. There are ~25,000,000 small businesses in the US alone. If 10% of them decided to send you one email per year, you would get 6,849 peices of mail a day. It would be hard or impossible to get those to stop. > - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an organization the > recipient does not have any prior relationship with. Define prior business relationship. If I have a store credit card with Company, Inc., and have never given them my email address for any reason, do they get to e-pend it from other sources, merely because they can? Yes, I have a business relationship with Company, Inc., but they were never granted permission to extend that relationship into an arena I have not chosen to invite them into, namely my inbox. How about registering software or a waffle iron for waranty purposes? If I don't give them an email address, do they have a right to go find one, because we have a "business" relationship? Is a bulk email for a survey or to preach to me about the Church of $diety or to ask for donations spam? It's not commercial. Spam is not about content, it is about consent. > - It is bulk e-mail from an organization the recipient does have a > prior relationship with, but the subject matter of the e-mail is > outside the scope of subject matter about which the recipient > agreed to receive e-mail from the organization. Define "agreed". The recipient and the sender often have varying definitions of "permission". > - It is bulk e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not > send him any further e-mail. One free bite? No. http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html An electronic message is "spam" IF: (1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender. DISCUSSION: (i) Trivial or mechanised personalization such as "Dear Mr. Jones, we see that you are the holder of the JONES.COM domain" does not make the personal identity of the recipient relevant in any way. (ii) Failing to click the "do not send me marketing literature by e-mail" button in a web sign-up form does not convey explicit permission. Only when the default result is "no followup e-mail" AND the inbox impact is clearly stated before any action which changes this result, can permission of this kind be conveyed. (iii) The appearance of disproportionate benefit to the sender, and the relevancy of the recipient's specific personal identity, are authoritatively determined by the recipient, and is not subject to argument or reinterpretation by the sender. (iv) Non-personal e-mail always places a disproportionate cost burden on the recipient, and is considered to disproportionately benefit the sender unless it was verifiably solicited or by the recipient's willing exception. (v) A message need not be offensive or commercial in order to fit the definition of "spam." Content is irrelevent except to the extent necessary to determine personal applicability, consent, and benefit. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 18:35:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24726 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h57MZIE00330 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:35:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MZIB00327 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:35:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24721; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OmFQ-0006NU-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:33:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OmFP-0006NR-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:33:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MX4B32757; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:33:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h57MW9B32731 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:32:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24687 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OmCM-0006N4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:30:06 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.attbi.com ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OmCM-0006N0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:30:06 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003060722313301100bl42le>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:31:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200306051925.h55JPM4j015507@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:31:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, Jun 5, 2003, at 15:25 US/Eastern, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Barry Shein : >> ... >> If CNN's recipient list meets the criteria you outline then the bulk >> mailing must be delivered for free and without interference. >> >> Who exactly is to provide these bottomless resources is not your >> concern, resources must be provided because it'd be FAIR, and we all >> know the world is free of starving children, people w/o proper medical >> care, and victims of despots, because if it's FAIR then it's field of >> dreams, the resources must appear. .... > > That and the following is equivalent to UPS whining about the cost of > delivering all of those packages. Instead, the people who solicited > CNN's stuff should be paying you just as they also pay you for the > GBytes of dirty pictures they fetch with FTP and HTTP and the GBytess > of pirated MP3s they fetch with "file sharing" protocols. > > Or do you run one of those ISPs that claims to provide something for > nothing? Charging the recipient is never going to work. Even assuming for the moment that we could magically solve the problem of unsolicited e-mail, such that users would only get charged for stuff they had actually asked for, there's an insurmountable problem: the companies who want to do marketing on the Internet will never go for it. Reason being, nobody (plus or minus a handful of people) will pay to receive marketing messages. Which means that if your vision of receiver-pays happened, e-mail based marketing would die a rapid death. Many non-marketing mailing lists would die rapidly too. How many mailing lists that you subscribe to would you still subscribe to if you had to pay by the message? Would you even subscribe to *this* mailing list if every e-mail was costing you money? Users don't like per-message or per-minute receiving fees on services they pay for. Look at mobile phones--the US has lagged behind Europe in mobile phone usage because users must pay by the minute to *receive* calls. How much junk mail would you agree to receive if you had to pay the USPS for received mail? In fact, early on the postal system was "recipient pays". That scheme fell apart in no time. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 20:34:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27336 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:34:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h580Y6E06768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:34:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h580Y6B06765 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:34:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27329; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oo6P-0007Ds-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:32:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oo6O-0007Do-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:32:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h580WOB06721; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:32:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h580VEB06703 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:31:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27279 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oo3d-0007DW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:29:13 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oo3b-0007DP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:29:11 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h580V0Wt008199 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:31:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306080031.h580V0Wt008199@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... References: <2543267.1054999475@dhcp-195.isc.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 18:31:00 -0600 (MDT) > From: Margie Arbon > ... > > - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an organization the > > recipient does not have any prior relationship with. > > Define prior business relationship. If I have a store credit card > with Company, Inc., and have never given them my email address for > any reason, do they get to e-pend it from other sources, merely > because they can? Yes, I have a business relationship with Company, > Inc., but they were never granted permission to extend that > relationship into an arena I have not chosen to invite them into, > namely my inbox. > ... According to "Legislators Call for Fix to Law Against Unsolicited E-Mails" in the Friday's "Wall Street Journal" ( http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105484626839598400,00.html may require a subscription) Sprint argued that you do have a prior business relationship in such a case: ] ... Sprint Corp. for example, denied ] sending unsolicited mail to Terry Gillman, one of Mr. Riddle's ] clients. In court papers, the Overland Park, Kan., telecommunications ] company argued that Mr. Gillman agreed to receive promotional e-mail ] while registering in April 2002 on a Web site owned by closely held ] Audio Galaxy, an online music company. Addresses collected by Audio ] Galaxy were sold and resold and ended up with a company called ] GroupLotto that initiated a mailing for Sprint long-distance phone service. Disclaimer: I think the DCC deals better with that kind of slime than with the current flood of porn, loan shark, and drug spam. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 7 21:00:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27596 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5810G508189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:00:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5810GB08186 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:00:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27587; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 21:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OoVj-0007If-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:58:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OoVh-0007Ic-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:58:13 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h580x7B08086; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:59:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h580wNB08061 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:58:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27533 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OoTt-0007HU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:56:21 -0400 Received: from [204.127.198.39] (helo=rwcrmhc13.attbi.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OoTr-0007HR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:56:20 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2003060800574501500d8dibe>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:57:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <2543267.1054999475@dhcp-195.isc.org> Message-Id: <36D45112-994C-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:57:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, Jun 7, 2003, at 18:24 US/Eastern, Margie Arbon wrote: > --On Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:36 PM -0400 mathew > wrote: >> - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for the >> recipient to stop from sending further messages. > > There are ~25,000,000 small businesses in the US alone. If 10% of them > decided to send you one email per year, you would get 6,849 peices of > mail a day. It would be hard or impossible to get those to stop. You seem to be in agreement with me then, since I would consider small businesses each sending me one unsolicited marketing message per year as spam. >> - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an organization the >> recipient does not have any prior relationship with. > > Define prior business relationship. It's up for debate. I'd start with something fairly tight, like I have to have given them the information. Remember, we're talking about sufficient, not necessary, conditions. >> - It is bulk e-mail from an organization the recipient does have a >> prior relationship with, but the subject matter of the e-mail is >> outside the scope of subject matter about which the recipient >> agreed to receive e-mail from the organization. > > Define "agreed". The recipient and the sender often have varying > definitions of "permission". Again, I'd take the conservative route, and say that I must have explicitly stated that I agree to it. >> - It is bulk e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not >> send him any further e-mail. > > One free bite? No. You seem not to understand the concept of "sufficient but not necessary". I am defining that if I've asked not to get e-mail and I still get it, it's spam. I'm NOT saying that if I haven't asked not to get e-mail, it's not spam. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 00:46:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01346 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h584jbj20309 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584jbB20306 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01317; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os1o-0000Xb-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:43:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os1o-0000XX-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:43:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584esB20172; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:40:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584c2B20027 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:38:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01245 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruU-0000VK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:02 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruT-0000VF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:01 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:38 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:36:43 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Eric Dean'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:11:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > >wrote: > >8<...>8 > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There isn't an RFC > > > 2822 > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the introduction > >of an > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?' > >[..] > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard is approved > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to interpose is that perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for the proposal is the type of question that should be asked at this state. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 00:46:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01361 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h584jeo20327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584jeB20322 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01323; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os1r-0000Xl-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:43:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os1q-0000Xe-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:43:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584erB20156; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:40:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584c3B20037 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:38:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01254 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruV-0000VX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:03 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruU-0000VF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:02 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:44 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:36:50 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32D56.0CB742C0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'bob@wyman.us'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Forbes Survey of Anti-Spam methods and products Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:25:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, June 06, 2003 3:01 PM, Bob Wyman [SMTP:bob@wyman.us] wrote: > FYI: Forbes has a fairly detailed article surveying Anti-Spam methods > and products: > > Kill Spam With Your Own Two Hands > By Stephen Manes, 06.23.03, 12:00 AM ET ^^^^^^^^ How'd they manage that? -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 00:51:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01468 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h584p1p20488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584p1B20485 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01454; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os72-0000Yv-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:49:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os71-0000Ys-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:48:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584e8B20112; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:40:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584c3B20029 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:38:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01248 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruU-0000VN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:02 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruT-0000VF-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:01 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:40 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:36:45 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32D56.0A16F560.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...) Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:23:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:29 PM, Vernon Schryver [SMTP:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > That is just as true of technical spam defenses as burglar alarms and > the SEC's insider trading detection systems. The techncial machinery > can do a good job, but it can never be even as imperfect as we are > (at least not until we have truely thinking and understanding computers). > There will always be cases where the machinery gets it wrong, as well > as cases where we can't agree on what's right. > > Insisting that the machinery be absolutely in-line with what we think > is spam is equivalent to the obvious nonsense that false positives > and false negatives will never happen. That is precisely the issue. Well put. IMHO, it begs the question how will 'impact acceptability' levels be characterized, e.g. branded, in a proposal? -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 01:35:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01362 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h584jeL20341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584jeB20325 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01324; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os1r-0000Xj-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:43:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Os1q-0000Xf-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:43:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584epB20140; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:40:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h584c3B20033 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:38:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01251 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruU-0000VQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:02 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OruT-0000VF-02 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:01 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:36:43 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:36:47 -0400 Message-ID: <01C32D56.0B6BD700.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Scott Nelson'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:17:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, June 06, 2003 1:56 PM, Scott Nelson [SMTP:scott@spamwolf.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > > I fear nothing good will come of this thread. I think that something good just did. :-) -e On Friday, June 06, 2003 1:56 PM, Scott Nelson [SMTP:scott@spamwolf.com] wrote: 88 > For example, IMO Spam is excessive unwanted email, not unsolicited bulk. > But most use the term "unsolicited" because "unwanted" is such a > fuzzy concept. To my way of thinking, "unsolicited" is the just > the best test we can apply to determine if an email is in the class > of things we can do something about. So we filter UBE because > it's much easier to understand what that should do, and how to do it. > "Spam" isn't "UBE" exactly, (though there's a lot of overlap), > and the concept is "don't try and claim UBE is the definition of spam, > but rather, say we're going after UBE which is close enough to what > most people think of as spam that it's good enough". > > > Bulk is also a fuzzy concept. But just because there are > shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white. > Rather than defining the line, we could define the gray area. > I.e. 1000 or more is bulk. 1 or less is not. > Between 1 and 1000 may or may not be bulk, but the dividing > line requires human judgement and depends on circumstances, > so we're not going be any more precise than that. > > In my experience, this sort of "fuzzy area" definition is > accepted immediately by spam fighters, though they question > if we can't be less generous and reduce the number to say 100, > or maybe even 20. > But it's completely unacceptable to spammer fighters. > Just suggesting it can polarize the group and ultimately > result in one camp storming off. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 02:49:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15419 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h586nTY05755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:49:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h586nSB05752 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:49:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15410; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Otxd-0001SD-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:47:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Otxc-0001SA-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:47:24 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h586fOB05546; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:41:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h586eWB05529 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:40:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15297 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 02:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Otoz-0001Qk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:38:29 -0400 Received: from 000-259-134.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.252.55] helo=68.27.252.55) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Otox-0001Qb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:38:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608023638.00b40750@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Hotmail used for scripted spam (from SlashDot) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:36:40 -0400 Just ran across this SlashDot story that discussed a hole in Hotmail that allows spammers to use HotMail for spam (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/06/08/0257203.shtml). The source appears to be this weblog (http://www.unicom.com/chrome/a/000262.html) and there is a link to this SpamCop article (http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/363.html). And here is a link to a howto on how to do it (http://www.thecodeproject.com/csharp/httpmail.asp). This seems to support someone's opinion that HotMail is being actively used for spamming. Note, that a CRI protocol will not help here since the HotMail C/R system will authenticate the sender. Only active involvement by the ISP and limiting amount of outgoing email will help. RMX will not resolve this issue either. The best is one of the comments on the posting, which appears to be a copy of a letter from MS's customer service: ----snip--- I have checked the mail including the headers and it appears that the mail passed through a Hotmail server. However, kindly note that this does not mean such e-mail originated from our domain. Sometimes, e-mail delivery between different domains are relayed through other servers. This is the reason why a Hotmail server appears in the mail header. It is possible that your ISP or e-mail provider employs such method. ----snip--- Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 06:44:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18596 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58AiKi22545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:44:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58AiKB22542 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:44:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18587; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oxcu-0002UM-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 06:42:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oxcu-0002UJ-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 06:42:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58AgSB22515; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:42:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58AfEB22495 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18564 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 06:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OxZu-0002To-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 06:39:10 -0400 Received: from mail2.asahi-net.or.jp ([202.224.39.198] helo=mail.asahi-net.or.jp) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OxZu-0002Tl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 06:39:10 -0400 Received: from nv6881 (j104186.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [61.213.104.186]) by mail.asahi-net.or.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 2867D6F9D; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 19:41:06 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <002b01c32daa$6e2032c0$0301a8c0@nv6881> From: "Shannon Jacobs" To: "Balachander Krishnamurthy" Cc: References: <200306071621.MAA25598@raptor.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: economics of spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 19:40:49 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, I did look at your (Mr. Krishnamurthy's) work, and found several aspects worthy of consideration. My two comments at this point would be that it doesn't seem to go far enough in the economic sense, and it didn't seem to elicit much discussion within the ASRG. However, it is possible that I missed a more extensive discussion of the topic, since the volume of the ASRG discussion is so large, and my own time for participation is rather limited. I also admired several aspects of the TitanKey system, and that one did receive extensive discussion in ASRG. However, little of that discussion seemed to be either economic-based or constructive. However, they (the TitanKey people) are definitely offering a slightly different approach, and they have an interesting economic model for the marketing, so it is quite possible their system will succeed, at least if success is defined in terms of being widely adopted and being profitable for their company. (However, I think the spammers will just see it as yet another form of yield reduction to be offset with more millions of spam email messages.) Balachander Krishnamurthy wrote: > take a look at > http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ietf56-talk.pdf > or > http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/shred-ietf56-talk.ps > a scheme that uses economic disincentives to reduce spam. > > cheers, > bala _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 08:18:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19706 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58CHwF27287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:17:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58CHwB27284 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:17:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19702; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oz5Z-0002pE-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 08:15:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oz5Z-0002pB-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 08:15:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58CGHB27259; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:16:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58CF1B27228 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19690 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oz2i-0002p1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 08:13:00 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Oz2h-0002oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 08:12:59 -0400 Received: from garbagedump.com ([24.128.102.183]) by mxsmta03.dellhost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030608121631.MKFN28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 08:16:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3EE328C9.6030701@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030525 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric D. Williams" CC: "'bob@wyman.us'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] Forbes Survey of Anti-Spam methods and products References: <01C32D56.0CB742C0.eric@infobro.com> In-Reply-To: <01C32D56.0CB742C0.eric@infobro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 08:15:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps switching to Mozilla's mail client and using the Junk Mail filtering software built into it. Eric D. Williams wrote: >On Friday, June 06, 2003 3:01 PM, Bob Wyman [SMTP:bob@wyman.us] wrote: > > >>FYI: Forbes has a fairly detailed article surveying Anti-Spam methods >>and products: >> >>Kill Spam With Your Own Two Hands >>By Stephen Manes, 06.23.03, 12:00 AM ET >> >> > ^^^^^^^^ >How'd they manage that? > >-e > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 10:49:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23599 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58En5J03469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:49:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58En5B03466 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:49:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23586; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P1Rk-0003hH-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:47:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P1Rk-0003hE-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:47:00 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58EjZB03388; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:45:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58EieB03345 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:44:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23557 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P1NU-0003gN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:42:36 -0400 Received: from [63.210.22.2] (helo=maverix1.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P1NT-0003gK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:42:35 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [63.210.23.8]) by maverix1.purespeed.com (8.12.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h58Em4H2020166; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:48:04 -0500 Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id ABC959F60102; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:44:25 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Eric D. Williams" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:47:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing a new RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, then so be it. I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed 2822 headers > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > >wrote: > > >8<...>8 > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > isn't an RFC > > > > 2822 > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > introduction > > >of an > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?' > > >[..] > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > is approved > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > interpose is that > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > the proposal is > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > -e > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 13:36:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26151 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58Ha8712421 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:36:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58Ha3B12414 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:36:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26137; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:35:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P43D-0004VT-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:33:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P43C-0004VQ-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:33:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58HWOB12353; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:32:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58HV2B12324 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:31:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26042 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P3yI-0004Tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:28:46 -0400 Received: from 000-243-873.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.192.34] helo=68.27.192.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P3yE-0004Th-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:28:43 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608133017.00b9b110@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Tony Hansen From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:30:18 -0400 At 10:19 PM 6/5/2003 -0400, Tony Hansen wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>The question is what do we do during the standards process until the RFC >>is approved, do we use "X-" or the regular headers? > >Simple: you write the internet draft in terms of what you expect to be >standardized. That is, in terms of regular headers. > >For example, when the MIME standard was being worked on, the internet >drafts were written using headers such as Content-Type, etc. They were NOT >written using X-Content-Type, and the name changed right before >publication. It was specified as Content-Type all along. Tony, Thanks for pointing this out. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 13:41:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26338 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58Hen413422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:40:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58HecB13415 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:40:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26193; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P47f-0004WF-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:38:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P47f-0004WC-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:38:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58Hb2B12512; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58HZvB12409 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:35:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26132 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P434-0004VN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:33:42 -0400 Received: from 000-243-873.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.192.34] helo=68.27.192.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P432-0004VK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:33:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608133107.00b90ba8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric Dean" , "Eric D. Williams" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: References: <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:35:22 -0400 Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like to bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out before, in my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME headers, with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon stated, MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data (larger than the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate chains and replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple recipients. Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful in certain cases. Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. Yakov At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing a new >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, then so be it. >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed 2822 headers > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > >wrote: > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > isn't an RFC > > > > > 2822 > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > introduction > > > >of an > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?' > > > >[..] > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > > is approved > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > interpose is that > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > the proposal is > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > -e > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 13:50:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26432 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58HnqA13596 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:49:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58HndB13585 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:49:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26415; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4GR-0004ai-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:47:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4GQ-0004ac-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:47:30 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58Hj6B13497; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:45:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58HieB13476 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:44:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26375 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT) From: bukys@cs.rochester.edu Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4BS-0004Zl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:42:22 -0400 Received: from gate.cs.rochester.edu ([192.5.53.207]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4BR-0004Zi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:42:21 -0400 Received: from cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (cycle1.cs.rochester.edu [128.151.67.99]) by gate.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6+Sun/001) with ESMTP id h58HiEj09247; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bukys@localhost) by cycle1.cs.rochester.edu (8.11.6/Q++) id h58HiAi13538; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:44:10 -0400 Message-Id: <200306081744.h58HiAi13538@cycle1.cs.rochester.edu> To: asrg@ietf.org, eric@infobro.com, eric@purespeed.com, research@solidmatrix.com Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 13:44:10 -0400 It seems to me that the most natural mechanism for CRI content is to treat it as a form of DSN. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 14:30:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26963 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58ITVg15554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:29:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58ITLB15551 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:29:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26950; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4so-0004kv-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:27:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4sn-0004ks-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:27:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58IRJB15493; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:27:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58IQXB15456 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:26:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26918 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4q3-0004kN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:24:19 -0400 Received: from 000-243-873.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.192.34] helo=68.27.192.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P4q1-0004kK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:24:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608133530.00b97660@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Shannon Jacobs" , "Balachander Krishnamurthy" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] economics of spam Cc: In-Reply-To: <002b01c32daa$6e2032c0$0301a8c0@nv6881> References: <200306071621.MAA25598@raptor.research.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:26:01 -0400 At 07:40 PM 6/8/2003 +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote: >[..] >I also admired several aspects of the TitanKey system, and that one did >receive extensive discussion in ASRG. However, little of that discussion >seemed to be either economic-based or constructive. >[..] In our discussion on the CRI protocol being proposed by Eric Dean, there is definitely space for "e-postage" and similar economic systems. The challenge/response tokens can definitely be digital certificates or signatures, indicating payment information. I think the common misconception in the group is that economic system will not take off, that would not be true necessarily - they probably will and we will account for them in the CRI protocol. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 17:11:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00537 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58LAZr25473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:10:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58LAOB25467 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:10:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00528; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P7Og-0005Mo-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:08:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P7Og-0005Mk-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:08:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58L8UB25340; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:08:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58L7DB24881 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:07:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00471 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P7LP-0005LT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:04:51 -0400 Received: from maverix1.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P7LO-0005LQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:04:50 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [63.210.23.8]) by maverix1.purespeed.com (8.12.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h58LARH2031343; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 16:10:27 -0500 Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.195] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A5636D6B0102; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:06:43 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Eric D. Williams" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608133554.00b903f8@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:09:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe I'm a minimalist, but I'm not sure where 998 characters is a limit for CRI. Hell, I'm not even concerned about the 78 characters that are "preferred". I would prefer not including hash cash, digital sigs, etc within a CRI model. I'd prefer to keep it simple. that's not to say that these additional capabilities are not warranted nor provide additional value. In fact, they may be of such value that they can stand alone. Regarding SMTP mods..I think we should reserve that concept and develop it within a subsequent version...but rather focus and define what's currently at hand. There are a few dozen C/R system that could benefit from an interworking model > Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like to > bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out > before, in > my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME > headers, > with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon stated, > MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data > (larger than > the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. > Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate chains and > replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple > recipients. > Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful > in certain > cases. > > Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as > extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own > features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. > > Yakov > > > At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with > proposing a new > >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, > then so be it. > >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > > > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the > >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > 2822 headers > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > > >wrote: > > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > > isn't an RFC > > > > > > 2822 > > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > > introduction > > > > >of an > > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as > effective?' > > > > >[..] > > > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until > the standard > > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > > > is approved > > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > similar to the > > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > indicate gzip > > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > > interpose is that > > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > > the proposal is > > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > > > -e > > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 18:22:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02786 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h58MLus29225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:21:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58MLuB29222 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:21:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02778; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P8W0-0005hp-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:19:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P8Vz-0005hm-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:19:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58MKOB29197; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:20:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h58MJwB29152 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:19:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02728 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P8U6-0005h9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:17:54 -0400 Received: from 000-243-873.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.192.34] helo=68.27.192.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19P8U3-0005h3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:17:52 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608181937.00bad728@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] IPR Document Update Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:19:38 -0400 The IPR document for the ASRG has been updated. The following was changed: ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. This affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC. The document can be found at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 20:27:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04517 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h590RDv02900 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:27:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h590RDB02896 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:27:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04511; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PATG-0006Dk-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:25:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PATG-0006Dh-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:25:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h590PjB02862; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:25:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h590OrB02823 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:24:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04497 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PAR1-0006DB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:22:51 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PAR0-0006D8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:22:50 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h590Of0H019988 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:24:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306090024.h590Of0H019988@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608181937.00bad728@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:24:41 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > The IPR document for the ASRG has been updated. The following was changed: > > ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. This > affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC. Such obviously false analyses are not helpful. That I trust you didn't intend to make a mistake and don't know why your analysis is false for at least one, probably two, and quite possibly all three of those mechanisms is all the more reason to not offer such analyses in the future. Statements about which patents affect which tactics based on ignorance of those tactics and superficial reading of patent claims asside, your list of patents could be interesting to people trying to avoid a few arbitrarily chosen patents, but it would be utterly foolish to rely on your list instead of a patent search. Your list can never be comprehensive without doing a real patent search, and even then one cannot know about impending patents. I apologize for this less than friendly note, but potentially damaging bogus analyses of intellectual property need to be challenged and squelched. In the future, please just collect the patents and leave the analyzing to patent lawyers, or at least people who are familiar with the various anti-spam mechanisms. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 21:32:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05943 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h591Vnt07212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:31:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h591VnB07209 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:31:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05936; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PBTm-0006d0-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:29:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PBTl-0006cx-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:29:45 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h591USB07119; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:30:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h591TKB07072 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:29:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05875 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PBRM-0006c9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:27:16 -0400 Received: from 000-243-873.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.192.34] helo=68.27.192.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PBRL-0006c3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:27:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608212847.00bbdd90@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org, Paul Judge From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:28:48 -0400 Dear Vernon, 1. For the record of all the ASRG members - I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be one. The entire purpose of this document that I am keeping on my own free time, it to record any IPR issues as they come up on the list. I am not searching the USPTO database, not Googling the entire Internet looking for patents. Neither am I analyzing them. If you would have taken care to go through the list, then you would have seen that no where do I offer my own analysis. All statements have been take from either public sources or from ASRG list postings. 2. The analysis statement in question was made by Bob Wyman not by me (see https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05304.html), I simply paraphrased it. 3. I moved the statement from the notes section to be directly under the list posting reference to make it more clear. I also removed the reference to DCC which seems to have irked you. I re-quoted the original statement as it was written by Bob instead of paraphrasing it. 4. Once again, my list is not intended to keep track of all IPR issues in the world, only of the ones that come up on the list. Are you implying that I should remove all references to all list postings simply because no one on the list except for you is qualified to express any opinions on IPR matters? Yakov At 06:24 PM 6/8/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > The IPR document for the ASRG has been updated. The following was changed: > > > > ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. > This > > affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC. > >Such obviously false analyses are not helpful. That I trust you >didn't intend to make a mistake and don't know why your analysis >is false for at least one, probably two, and quite possibly all >three of those mechanisms is all the more reason to not offer such >analyses in the future. > >Statements about which patents affect which tactics based on ignorance >of those tactics and superficial reading of patent claims asside, your >list of patents could be interesting to people trying to avoid a few >arbitrarily chosen patents, but it would be utterly foolish to rely >on your list instead of a patent search. Your list can never be >comprehensive without doing a real patent search, and even then one >cannot know about impending patents. > >I apologize for this less than friendly note, but potentially damaging >bogus analyses of intellectual property need to be challenged and >squelched. In the future, please just collect the patents and leave >the analyzing to patent lawyers, or at least people who are familiar >with the various anti-spam mechanisms. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 22:22:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07250 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h592MVg10889 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592MVB10886 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07246; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCGo-00071j-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:20:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCGo-00071g-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:20:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592LDB10853; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:21:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592KBB10794 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:20:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07225 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCEZ-000716-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:18:07 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCEY-000711-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:18:06 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h592K5V7010237 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:20:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306090220.h592K5V7010237@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608211227.00ba0660@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:20:05 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > 1. For the record of all the ASRG members - I am not a lawyer and do not > claim to be one. The entire purpose of this document that I am keeping on > my own free time, it to record any IPR issues as they come up on the list. > I am not searching the USPTO database, not Googling the entire Internet > looking for patents. Neither am I analyzing them. On the contrary, the following words of yours were an analysis or conclusion of an analysis: ] ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. This ] affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC. > ... > 2. The analysis statement in question was made by Bob Wyman not by me (see > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05304.html > I simply paraphrased it. Your "paraphrase" differs significantly from Mr. Wyman's original, and not only in the deletion of Cloudmark and addition of the DCC. He wrote that some mechanisms "may be an infringement or use" while you wrote "affects systems such as." Mr. Wyman avoided hazzards that you leaped on. Note that your deletion seems almost as arbitrary and dubious as your addition. I assume Mr. Wyman listed Cloudmark as well as SpamNet, because he has heard what I've heard (or better, knows instead of only heard), that Vipul's Razor, Pyzor, and SpamNet are three distinct things and that Cloudmark is currently working on more than SpamNet. > ... > 3. I moved the statement from the notes section to be directly under the > list posting reference to make it more clear. I also removed the reference > to DCC which seems to have irked you. I re-quoted the original statement as > it was written by Bob instead of paraphrasing it. What? You're changing the archives of this mailing list? I'm less concerned about web pages someone might have, and more concerned about unchallenged legal claims in a more or less official forum like this. However, you have repeatedly implied that your list of patents is somehow comprehensive and authoritative. I have several times suppresed the impluse to disagree and urge caution. > 4. Once again, my list is not intended to keep track of all IPR issues in > the world, only of the ones that come up on the list. Are you implying that > I should remove all references to all list postings simply because no one >on the list except for you is qualified to express any opinions on IPR matters? I know I'm not qualifed in general to analyze general IPR matters, while you've repeatedly implied you are not so limited. For example, you might notice that I was careful to not be specific when I disagreed about the mechanisms (my plural) that you baldly claimed are affected by that patent. As I said, your list could be useful, but please do not increase the hazzards we suffer with ill considered IPR analyses of patents you've not read and/or anti-spam mechanisms you don't know or care about. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 8 23:19:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07904 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h593JFl14061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:19:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h593JFB14058 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:19:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07897; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PD9m-0007Bh-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:17:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PD9m-0007Be-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:17:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h593HNB14004; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:17:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h593G8B13977 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:16:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07871 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PD6l-0007BZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:14:07 -0400 Received: from 000-243-873.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.192.34] helo=68.27.192.34 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PD6j-0007BW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:14:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030608231502.00b93500@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org, Paul Judge From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:15:03 -0400 I have also changed the introduction section of the document as follows: "This document lists various IPR claims related to anti-spam technology which came up on the ASRG mailing list." Since the offending statements have been removed, I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you have any further problems, post them to the list. Yakov At 08:20 PM 6/8/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > 1. For the record of all the ASRG members - I am not a lawyer and do not > > claim to be one. The entire purpose of this document that I am keeping on > > my own free time, it to record any IPR issues as they come up on the list. > > I am not searching the USPTO database, not Googling the entire Internet > > looking for patents. Neither am I analyzing them. > >On the contrary, the following words of yours were an analysis or >conclusion of an analysis: > >] ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. This >] affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC. > > > ... > > 2. The analysis statement in question was made by Bob Wyman not by me (see > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05304.html > > I simply paraphrased it. > >Your "paraphrase" differs significantly from Mr. Wyman's original, >and not only in the deletion of Cloudmark and addition of the DCC. >He wrote that some mechanisms "may be an infringement or use" while >you wrote "affects systems such as." Mr. Wyman avoided hazzards that >you leaped on. Note that your deletion seems almost as arbitrary and >dubious as your addition. I assume Mr. Wyman listed Cloudmark as well >as SpamNet, because he has heard what I've heard (or better, knows >instead of only heard), that Vipul's Razor, Pyzor, and SpamNet are >three distinct things and that Cloudmark is currently working on >more than SpamNet. > > > > ... > > 3. I moved the statement from the notes section to be directly under the > > list posting reference to make it more clear. I also removed the reference > > to DCC which seems to have irked you. I re-quoted the original > statement as > > it was written by Bob instead of paraphrasing it. > >What? You're changing the archives of this mailing list? I'm less >concerned about web pages someone might have, and more concerned about >unchallenged legal claims in a more or less official forum like this. > >However, you have repeatedly implied that your list of patents is >somehow comprehensive and authoritative. I have several times >suppresed the impluse to disagree and urge caution. > > > 4. Once again, my list is not intended to keep track of all IPR issues in > > the world, only of the ones that come up on the list. Are you implying > that > > I should remove all references to all list postings simply because no one > >on the list except for you is qualified to express any opinions on IPR > matters? > >I know I'm not qualifed in general to analyze general IPR matters, >while you've repeatedly implied you are not so limited. For example, >you might notice that I was careful to not be specific when I disagreed >about the mechanisms (my plural) that you baldly claimed are affected >by that patent. > >As I said, your list could be useful, but please do not increase the >hazzards we suffer with ill considered IPR analyses of patents you've >not read and/or anti-spam mechanisms you don't know or care about. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 08:03:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29386 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59C3VE27403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:03:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59C3VB27400 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:03:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29357; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PLL7-00025l-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:01:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PLL6-00025h-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:01:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59C0qB27070; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:00:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59BkGB26320 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:46:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28790 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PL4Q-0001wx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:44:14 -0400 Received: from mail13.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.213] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PL4P-0001wm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:44:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 12722 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2003 11:45:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail13.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 9 Jun 2003 11:45:15 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: mathew Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <0D95322B-9930-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <0D95322B-9930-11D7-A840-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306090747.52004.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:47:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mathew wrote: > Each of the following conditions is sufficient, but not > necessary, for an e-mail to be categorized as spam: > > - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for the > recipient to stop from sending further messages. > > - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an organization the > recipient does not have any prior relationship with. > > - It is bulk e-mail from an organization the recipient does have a > prior relationship with, but the subject matter of the e-mail is > outside the scope of subject matter about which the recipient agreed > to receive e-mail from the organization. > > - It is bulk e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not > send him any further e-mail. The last one is merely a subset of the prior -- it is outside the scope because the scope has been explicitly reduced to the null set. The first one, in turn, could also be considered a case of the last one. Also, the second is faulty in that such email needn't be commercial to be spam. Remember the religious, political, and a few other kinds of spam. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 09:19:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03440 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59DJFS01326 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59DJFB01323 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03436; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMWN-0003KF-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:17:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMWM-0003KC-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:17:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59DHKB01265; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:17:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59DGUB01226 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:16:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03402 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMTh-0003JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:14:25 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMTh-0003JN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:14:25 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:03:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'Dave Aronson'" , "'mathew'" Subject: Reaching consensus on 'what is spam' (Was RE: [Asrg] Another crit eria for "what is spam"...) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:03:34 -0400 Folks, we will not continue to have this debate. If you read Mathew's email (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05315.htm l), it enumeates sufficient conditions rather than sufficient and necessary conditions. What this means is that email began a list of the possible personal definitions of spam. Therefore, there is no need to debate each of these definitions. Now, take such a list and couple it with the approach that I presented in a previous message (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05307.htm l): "The point here is to generalize to a problem of unwanted communication. This can be framed into a problem of consent-based communication. This allows anyone's interpretation of 'spam' to be expressed and enforced. For example, if someone decides on the definition of 'unsolicited bulk email', this can be expressed and enforced. Additionally, a particular solution may focus on preventing or detecting a certain type of communication. For example, one proposal focuses only on detecting bulk email. Another proposal focuses on detecting solicited email. A different proposal focuses on detecting email with authentic path and sender information. All of these different proposals form part of a consent-based communication system. As a solution is proposed, it should state the classes or types of unwanted messages that it will be effective against. With proper measurement and characterization work, we should be able to understand what percentage of the current spam volume that describes. Additionally, the system must state the assumptions upon which it is based. This allows analysis of the robustness of the system in the face of countermeasures that may reverse these assumptions." We will capture this thought and the list of sufficient conditions that have been stated on the mailing list and compile them in the Requirements document. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Aronson [mailto:dja2003@hotpop.com] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:48 AM > To: mathew > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > mathew wrote: > > > Each of the following conditions is sufficient, but not > > necessary, for an e-mail to be categorized as spam: > > > > - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for > the > recipient to stop from sending further messages. > > > - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an > organization the > recipient does not have any prior > relationship with. > > - It is bulk e-mail from an > organization the recipient does have a > prior relationship > with, but the subject matter of the e-mail is > outside the > scope of subject matter about which the recipient agreed > > to receive e-mail from the organization. > > - It is bulk > e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not > send > him any further e-mail. > > The last one is merely a subset of the prior -- it is outside > the scope > because the scope has been explicitly reduced to the null set. The > first one, in turn, could also be considered a case of the last one. > > Also, the second is faulty in that such email needn't be > commercial to be > spam. Remember the religious, political, and a few other > kinds of spam. > > -- > David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near > Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online > resume, and other info > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 12:26:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10524 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59GQKn14720 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:26:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59GQKB14717 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:26:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10504; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PPRQ-0004nc-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:24:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PPRQ-0004nZ-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:24:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59GOWB14635; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:24:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59GNAB14584 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:23:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10423 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:23:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PPON-0004mU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:21:07 -0400 Received: from 000-230-454.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.139.77] helo=68.27.139.77 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PPOL-0004m6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:21:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030609122237.00b9e150@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric Dean" , "Eric D. Williams" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:22:38 -0400 At 05:09 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: >Maybe I'm a minimalist, but I'm not sure where 998 characters is a limit for >CRI. Hell, I'm not even concerned about the 78 characters that are >"preferred". > >I would prefer not including hash cash, digital sigs, etc within a CRI >model. I'd prefer to keep it simple. that's not to say that these >additional capabilities are not warranted nor provide additional value. In >fact, they may be of such value that they can stand alone. Should we be building in an extension mechanism that would allow for that? SMTP for example is a simple protocol, but has an extension mechanism which allows for a lot more complex stuff. >Regarding SMTP mods..I think we should reserve that concept and develop it >within a subsequent version...but rather focus and define what's currently >at hand. There are a few dozen C/R system that could benefit from an >interworking model Agreed. > > Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like to > > bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out > > before, in > > my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME > > headers, > > with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon stated, > > MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data > > (larger than > > the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. > > Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate chains and > > replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple > > recipients. > > Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful > > in certain > > cases. > > > > Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as > > extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own > > features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. > > > > Yakov > > > > > > At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with > > proposing a new > > >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, > > then so be it. > > >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > > > > > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the > > >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > > 2822 headers > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > > > isn't an RFC > > > > > > > 2822 > > > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > > > introduction > > > > > >of an > > > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as > > effective?' > > > > > >[..] > > > > > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until > > the standard > > > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > > > > is approved > > > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > > similar to the > > > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > > indicate gzip > > > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > > > interpose is that > > > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > > > the proposal is > > > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > > > > > -e > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 14:28:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15642 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59IS8r25139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:28:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IS8B25136 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:28:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15586; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRLG-00064L-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:26:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRLG-00064I-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:26:02 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IQ6B24957; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:26:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IPCB24908 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:25:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15409 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRIQ-000614-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:23:06 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRIP-00060e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:23:06 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A13E12270088; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:26:06 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:29:23 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <606518bb-4e37-423f-8de2-97c3f310de00> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] CRI Header Thread-Index: AcMt7AA3ciVfmH4ZTjeX1Qbi7kXrPgAyKLog From: "Peter Kay" To: , , , , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h59IPCB24909 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:24:41 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As I've mentioned before, CRI as DSN is OK so long as the MAIL FROM is challenge-sender's email address > -----Original Message----- > From: bukys@cs.rochester.edu [mailto:bukys@cs.rochester.edu] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:44 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org; eric@infobro.com; eric@purespeed.com; > research@solidmatrix.com > Cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > It seems to me that the most natural mechanism for CRI > content is to treat it as a form of DSN. > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 14:29:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15712 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59ITYg25229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:29:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59ITYB25226 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:29:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15698; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRMe-00065n-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:27:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRMd-00065h-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:27:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IMTB24736; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:22:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IL8B24646 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:21:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15249 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PREV-0005yX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:19:03 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PREU-0005xq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:19:02 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A04018650084; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:21:52 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:25:10 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMtKDgmeAsFqfdLSjCNau8/iL7r/gBixaRg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Scott Nelson" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h59IL9B24647 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:20:29 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Nelson [mailto:scott@spamwolf.com] > > At 06:24 PM 6/6/03 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > >I agree, a challenge can be seen as a DSN or a new message. > My point is > >that in either case, the MAIL FROM or REPLYTO should be > consistent with > >the challenger's email address, otherwise 2 C/R systems will > challenge > >each other's challenge. > > > > If you're sending a DSN, then the From: header could be your > address, but the MAIL FROM should probably be <>. That > prevents a lot of bad things from happening. > I think DSN in the CR space is a matter of semantics and definition. I'm not 100% whether a challenge email is a DSN or not, and like I said earlier I can see a case for it ether way. If you're saying that if it's a DSN, then the MAIL FROM s/b <>, then I'll say that challenge emails are not DSNs. > Setting the MAIL FROM to your address means that you could > end up challenging a non-existent address, then the > mailer_daemon that bounces the mail back to you. If the C/R > system was really broken, it could challenge bounces > from a non-existent address endlessly, but in the normal case > this is only twice as much work as you need to do. > The MAIL FROM needs to be the address of the challenge sender in order to allow CRI systems to interoperate. While some CR systems may inspect the header, other systems that bounce the email outright (like ours) need to look at the MAIL FROM, for reasons I've mentioned earlier in this thread. You are correct about that fact that you "could end up challenging a non-existent address". Most spammers use bad addresses. Our system handles mail that is bounced because of non-existent email and this also results in reduced load on the MTS due to more intelligent mailer_daemon handling. Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 14:43:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16191 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59Igdk26759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IgdB26756 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16182; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRZJ-0006Bz-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:40:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRZI-0006Bw-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:40:32 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IeHB26665; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:40:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59IdmB26608 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:39:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16119 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRWY-0006AU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:37:42 -0400 Received: from 000-236-597.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.163.124] helo=68.27.163.124 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRWV-0006AR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:37:40 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030609143835.00baf6a8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org, "Peter Kay" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:39:22 -0400 By definition a DSN is addressed to the address in the MAIL FROM command, as per section 2 of RFC 3464: "The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return address appears in the MAIL FROM command.)" HOWEVER, the same section states: "Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>"." That means that C/R systems such as yours MUST support the empty return path (<>). Yakov At 08:24 AM 6/9/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >As I've mentioned before, CRI as DSN is OK so long as the MAIL FROM is >challenge-sender's email address > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bukys@cs.rochester.edu [mailto:bukys@cs.rochester.edu] > > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:44 AM > > To: asrg@ietf.org; eric@infobro.com; eric@purespeed.com; > > research@solidmatrix.com > > Cc: bukys@cs.rochester.edu > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > It seems to me that the most natural mechanism for CRI > > content is to treat it as a form of DSN. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 15:12:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17869 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59JBpd28963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:11:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59JBoB28960 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:11:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17819; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PS1X-0006OB-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:09:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PS1X-0006O8-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:09:43 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59JABB28913; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:10:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59J8OB28819 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:08:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17485 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRyD-0006Mk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:06:17 -0400 Received: from 000-236-597.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.163.124] helo=68.27.163.124 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PRyA-0006Mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:06:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030609143354.00b40ff8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: bukys@cs.rochester.edu, asrg@ietf.org, "Eric Dean" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <200306081744.h58HiAi13538@cycle1.cs.rochester.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:07:17 -0400 At 01:44 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, bukys@cs.rochester.edu wrote: >It seems to me that the most natural mechanism for CRI >content is to treat it as a form of DSN. You are raising a very good point. After perusing the DSN RFCs (3461-3464), it seems to me that a DNS is a perfect envelope for a CRI protocol. This may also fall under the work of the Message Tracking Group of the IETF (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/msgtrk-charter.html). I got the following points: 1. A MIME type called "multipart/report" is defined in RFC 3462 for the following purpose: "The Multipart/Report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) content-type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although this memo defines only the use of the Multipart/Report content-type with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single content-type is used to for all kinds of reports." As you can see, this MIME type is not restricted to DSNs but can be used for "all kinds of reports" including CRI. Additionally it defines three sets of bodies: one for humans, one for machines and a third optional one to include the original message. 2. RFC 3464 further defines another MIME type called "message/delivery-status" which is used within the MIME type "multipart/report" for Delivery Status Notifications (DSN) as follows: "A DSN can be used to notify the sender of a message of any of several conditions: failed delivery, delayed delivery, successful delivery, or the gatewaying of a message into an environment that may not support DSNs." A C/R system sending out a challenge might fit into the category of "delayed delivery". 3. DSNs are sent in reply to the address in the MAIL FROM command and are set with the MAIL FROM <> path to avoid loops (RFC 3464). Guidelines for lists are also provided. 5. A bunch of useful fields are defined for DSNs. 4. RFC 3463, section 2.4 provides for extension fields that can be registered for use with DSN. Note that "X-" fields are not permitted. An IANA registry exists at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dsn-types. 5. RFC 3461 defines an ESMTP extension that can be used with DSNs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 15:25:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18494 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59JOr229591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:24:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59JOrB29588 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:24:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18484; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PSEF-0006RR-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:22:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PSEE-0006RN-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:22:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59JNGB29506; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:23:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59JMuB29470 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:22:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18435 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PSCM-0006RD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:20:54 -0400 Received: from 000-236-597.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.163.124] helo=68.27.163.124 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PSCK-0006R4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:20:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030609151453.00bafef8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , "Scott Nelson" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:22:32 -0400 At 08:20 AM 6/9/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Nelson [mailto:scott@spamwolf.com] >[...] > > Setting the MAIL FROM to your address means that you could > > end up challenging a non-existent address, then the > > mailer_daemon that bounces the mail back to you. If the C/R > > system was really broken, it could challenge bounces > > from a non-existent address endlessly, but in the normal case > > this is only twice as much work as you need to do. > > > >The MAIL FROM needs to be the address of the challenge sender in order >to allow CRI systems to interoperate. While some CR systems may inspect >the header, other systems that bounce the email outright (like ours) >need to look at the MAIL FROM, for reasons I've mentioned earlier in >this thread. This would only be true for C/R systems that interoperate via plain SMTP. I don't think it would be a problem to use either an ESMTP extension that is defined for DSNs or to define an new ESMTP extension. This way you will get around the MAIL FROM<> requirement that is mandated by the RFCs by passing the C/R information via such extension. ALSO, not all C/R systems are using the MAIL FROM <>. Earthlink for example, sends out all of its challenges from the same email address (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26774-2003Jun6.html). Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 16:35:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20325 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59KZRF01743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:35:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59KZQB01740 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:35:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20313; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTKU-0006nR-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:33:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTKU-0006nO-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:33:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59KXRB01662; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:33:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59KWpB01612 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:32:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20197 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTHz-0006mL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:30:47 -0400 Received: from cs.sfu.ca ([142.58.111.1] ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTHz-0006mI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:30:47 -0400 Received: from regula (regula [199.60.2.110]) by cs.sfu.ca (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h59KWkvS017418 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:32:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob Cameron To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306091332.46085.cameron@cs.sfu.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:32:46 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is hard to keep up with the volume of this list. However, here are some of my thoughts on how C/R systems should use existing headers. Although there are good arguments in favour of issuing challenges to the MAIL FROM envelope header when it differs from the RFC 2822 From: field, I do not think that C/R systems should consider challenges to be delivery status notifications (DSNs). (1) A DSN is logically a communication from the MTA, acting like a postal worker. Some C/R systems will view a challenge as a communication from the MUA, acting like a secretary. (In our research, we use the term e-secretary and envisage a protocol to define the future interoperation of e-secretaries to carry out a variety of low-level messaging tasks on behalf of mailbox owners). 2) A DSN is designed as a terminal communication, in which the MAIL FROM address <> is used to indicate that a reply should not be made. But the purpose of a challenge, to a legitimate sender, is to solicit a reply. (3) A challenge sent as a DSN is likely to be confusing to a human who receives it, depending on MUA behaviour. (4) To automatically reply to challenges as DSNs, software that otherwise knows never to reply to a DSN will need to be modified to violate this principle. For the purpose of the Internetworking Framework, I don't think that we should assume that challenges/responses will only be generated to the MAIL FROM field. Rather, the framework should be robust enough to handle challenges/responses to either the envelope MAIL FROM or the From: message field. Indeed, I think that the framework should make a statement something like the following. "In formulating a challenge message, a C/R system should use the MAIL FROM envelope header and the from, reply-to and sender message headers for appropriate purposes. However, a C/R system must ensure that it is capable of receiving and correctly processing a response sent to any address mentioned in any of these fields." Beyond this, I also think that C/R systems should be required to provide full support for message-id, in-reply-to and references headers. That is, the framework should state that challenges and responses must (not should) provide a unique message-id and must (not should) properly form in-reply-to and references headers from prior e-mails in the chain. By implementing these RFC2822 recommendations, C/R systems will give each other valuable information to address both looping and spoofing concerns. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 16:47:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20915 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59Kkva03069 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:46:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59KkvB03066 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:46:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20911; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTVd-0006yf-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:44:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTVc-0006yc-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:44:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59Kj7B03002; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:45:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59Ki2B02955 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:44:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20762 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTSo-0006vZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:41:58 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PTSo-0006vW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:41:58 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2433862 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:44:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Spam in Action - NYTimes on Iraqi Card Decks Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:43:52 -0400 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/technology/09CARD.html Note that someone on the third tier of the chain was getting a response rate of 1/10 of 1% (a number we've seen quoted elsewhere). That always sounds tiny, but a million is a very big number. They were pulling in $5-6000 per million messages. That kind of economic pressure is going to be very hard to fight. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 17:57:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22383 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59LvGU07956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59LvGB07953 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:57:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22374; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUbf-0007Lo-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:55:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUbe-0007Ll-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:55:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59LtMB07888; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:55:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59LsvB07852 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:54:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22345 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:54:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUZP-0007Ki-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:52:52 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUZO-0007KQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:52:51 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A241613007A; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:55:13 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:58:32 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <6cf10c08-e52c-4344-b103-b557e8b75a3b> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMuzPX4kSFSxfoxRKK0sow0rms0rgABPoUg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Rob Cameron" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h59LsvB07853 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:53:50 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Rob's suggestion makes CRI more "I". I like it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Cameron [mailto:cameron@cs.sfu.ca] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:33 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework > > > It is hard to keep up with the volume of this list. However, > here are some of my thoughts on how C/R systems should > use existing headers. > > Although there are good arguments in favour of issuing > challenges to the MAIL FROM envelope header when it differs > from the RFC 2822 From: field, I do not think that C/R > systems should consider challenges to be delivery status > notifications (DSNs). > > (1) A DSN is logically a communication from the MTA, > acting like a postal worker. Some C/R systems will view a > challenge as a communication from the MUA, acting like a > secretary. (In our research, we use the term e-secretary and > envisage a protocol to define the future interoperation of > e-secretaries to carry out a variety of low-level messaging > tasks on behalf of mailbox owners). > > 2) A DSN is designed as a terminal communication, in which > the MAIL FROM address <> is used to indicate that a reply > should not be made. But the purpose of a challenge, to a > legitimate sender, is to solicit a reply. > > (3) A challenge sent as a DSN is likely to be confusing > to a human who receives it, depending on MUA behaviour. > > (4) To automatically reply to challenges as DSNs, software > that otherwise knows never to reply to a DSN will need to > be modified to violate this principle. > > For the purpose of the Internetworking Framework, I don't > think that we should assume that challenges/responses will only > be generated to the MAIL FROM field. Rather, the framework > should be robust enough to handle challenges/responses to > either the envelope MAIL FROM or the From: message field. > > Indeed, I think that the framework should make a statement > something like the following. > > "In formulating a challenge message, a C/R system should use > the MAIL FROM envelope header and the from, reply-to > and sender message headers for appropriate purposes. However, > a C/R system must ensure that it is capable of receiving and > correctly processing a response sent to any address mentioned > in any of these fields." > > Beyond this, I also think that C/R systems should be required > to provide full support for message-id, in-reply-to and > references headers. That is, the framework should state that > challenges and responses must (not should) provide a unique > message-id and must (not should) properly form in-reply-to > and references > headers from prior e-mails in the chain. By implementing these > RFC2822 recommendations, C/R systems will give each other > valuable information to address both looping and spoofing concerns. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 18:07:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22931 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59M6lv08312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:06:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59M6lB08309 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:06:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22881; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUkr-0007Nz-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:04:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUkr-0007Nw-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:04:41 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59M5CB08285; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:05:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59M4vB08243 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:04:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22677 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUj5-0007NX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:02:51 -0400 Received: from 000-236-597.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.163.124] helo=68.27.163.124) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUj1-0007NU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:02:48 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030609180420.00ba30d8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Rob Cameron , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:04:22 -0400 At 01:32 PM 6/9/2003 -0700, Rob Cameron wrote: >[..] > >Although there are good arguments in favour of issuing >challenges to the MAIL FROM envelope header when >it differs from the RFC 2822 From: field, I do not think >that C/R systems should consider challenges to be delivery >status notifications (DSNs). What about defining CRI within the "Multipart/Report" MIME type defined by RFC 3462 (as follows)? " The Multipart/Report MIME content-type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind." >(1) A DSN is logically a communication from the MTA, >acting like a postal worker. Some C/R systems will view a >challenge as a communication from the MUA, acting like a >secretary. (In our research, we use the term e-secretary and >envisage a protocol to define the future interoperation of >e-secretaries to carry out a variety of low-level messaging >tasks on behalf of mailbox owners). That is a valid point, DSNs are used exclusively for MTAs. However in many cases in systems such as Earthlink or Titan Key, the MTA is the one that is responsible for the C/R interaction BEFORE the email reaches the MUA. In TitanKey's case specifically, the C/R process begins at the SMTP level, before email reaches the MUA. >2) A DSN is designed as a terminal communication, in which >the MAIL FROM address <> is used to indicate that a reply >should not be made. But the purpose of a challenge, to a >legitimate sender, is to solicit a reply. > >(3) A challenge sent as a DSN is likely to be confusing >to a human who receives it, depending on MUA behaviour. Why would a challenge be sent to a DSN? The challenge itself is being sent as a DSN with no return MAIL FROM path, thus it cannot be challenged unless the sender starts interpreting the headers. >(4) To automatically reply to challenges as DSNs, software >that otherwise knows never to reply to a DSN will need to >be modified to violate this principle. Correct that's why DSNs might not be the best solution, however we can use it as a basis for the CRI protocol. >For the purpose of the Internetworking Framework, I don't >think that we should assume that challenges/responses will only >be generated to the MAIL FROM field. Rather, the framework >should be robust enough to handle challenges/responses to >either the envelope MAIL FROM or the From: message field. > >Indeed, I think that the framework should make a statement >something like the following. > >"In formulating a challenge message, a C/R system should use >the MAIL FROM envelope header and the from, reply-to >and sender message headers for appropriate purposes. However, >a C/R system must ensure that it is capable of receiving and >correctly processing a response sent to any address mentioned in >any of these fields." For systems such as Titan Key where negotiation is done on SMTP level, only the MAIL FROM field is used. If its empty, then the system fails. We should probably add guidelines that in case empty <> is specified, the C/R system should accept the message and use its "From" field. >Beyond this, I also think that C/R systems should be required >to provide full support for message-id, in-reply-to and references >headers. That is, the framework should state that challenges >and responses must (not should) provide a unique message-id >and must (not should) properly form in-reply-to and references >headers from prior e-mails in the chain. By implementing these >RFC2822 recommendations, C/R systems will give each other >valuable information to address both looping and spoofing >concerns. Agreed. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 18:24:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23894 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59MNhL09861 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:23:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59MNhB09858 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:23:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23875; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PV1E-0007SW-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:21:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PV1E-0007ST-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:21:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59MM6B09753; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:22:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59MLHB09728 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:21:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23833 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:21:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUys-0007S2-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:19:10 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc13.attbi.com ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PUys-0007Rn-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:19:10 -0400 Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <20030609222040016001l7m1e>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:20:40 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030609161229.03cf3558@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Rob Cameron , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework In-Reply-To: <200306091332.46085.cameron@cs.sfu.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:21:19 -0600 >Beyond this, I also think that C/R systems should be required >to provide full support for message-id, in-reply-to and references >headers. That is, the framework should state that challenges >and responses must (not should) provide a unique message-id >and must (not should) properly form in-reply-to and references >headers from prior e-mails in the chain. By implementing these >RFC2822 recommendations, C/R systems will give each other >valuable information to address both looping and spoofing >concerns. I agree that we should have a references: header (just like the one in NNTP). This would be useful for threading mail conversation threads among other things. I have often wondered why current clients don't maintain this header and utilize it when available. It would be so useful. I think as has been mentioned previously in regards to CR systems in general (and I don't remember if it was mentioned in the CRI case), that what should happen is that the messages should be digitally signed by the sender. The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather than the FROM address. Thus it would be quite possible for people to have multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if they switched ISPs. Furthermore, it would virtually eliminate spoofing since even if someone were able to obtain a previous copy of someone's mail and a list of all their friends, they still would be unable to spoof the digital signature. When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address. I'm not sure if the CRI framework provides for this or not as I have a hard time keeping up with things (just as many in this list apparently do). Is there a brief synopsis of the current state of the CRI framework so I can refresh my memory on everything? (Which would be much better than having to re-read all the CRI messages. ;-) -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 9 22:37:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28723 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5A2b0Q25506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:37:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5A2axB25503 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:36:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28715; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PYyK-0000vJ-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:34:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PYyJ-0000vG-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:34:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5A2YoB25401; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:34:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5A2XrB25363 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:33:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28676 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PYvK-0000tt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:31:46 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PYvJ-0000tS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:31:45 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id A3C6C49009C; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:34:46 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:38:05 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <97eee452-f3c7-45b3-a780-5c4b686ffe52> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Thread-Index: AcMu2nCkxHvDDtIbQSWEf6SGZeriMQAHkBcA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Rob Cameron" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5A2XsB25364 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:33:23 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > For systems such as Titan Key where negotiation is done on > SMTP level, only > the MAIL FROM field is used. If its empty, then the system > fails. We should > probably add guidelines that in case empty <> is specified, > the C/R system > should accept the message and use its "From" field. > I'm in agreement w/ all that's being said so far on this thread. We can also work w/ the above as well and accept empty MAIL FROM. We'll just have to be really careful here as it's a hole that spammers can use to get messages through. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 10 12:48:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08756 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5AGlbI07681 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:47:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AGlbB07677 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:47:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08714; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PmFX-0000RF-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:45:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PmFX-0000RB-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:45:31 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AGhHB07334; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:43:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AGf2B07246 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:41:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08500 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Pm9A-0000N0-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:38:56 -0400 Received: from 000-231-282.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.142.143] helo=68.27.142.143 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Pm97-0000Mw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:38:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610124019.00bc4828@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Art Pollard , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:40:20 -0400 At 04:21 PM 6/9/2003 -0600, Art Pollard wrote: >[..] > > >I think as has been mentioned previously in regards to CR systems in >general (and I don't remember if it was mentioned in the CRI case), that >what should happen is that the messages should be digitally signed by the >sender. The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather >than the FROM address. Thus it would be quite possible for people to have >multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail >address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if >they switched ISPs. Furthermore, it would virtually eliminate spoofing >since even if someone were able to obtain a previous copy of someone's >mail and a list of all their friends, they still would be unable to spoof >the digital signature. When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a >particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address. We discussed the possibility within the CRI framework. However, it is important to keep the CRI framework simple and things like digital signatures and hashcash, would be implemented via an extension mechanism. >I'm not sure if the CRI framework provides for this or not as I have a >hard time keeping up with things (just as many in this list apparently do). > >Is there a brief synopsis of the current state of the CRI framework so I >can refresh my memory on everything? (Which would be much better than >having to re-read all the CRI messages. ;-) Hold on for Eric Dean's latest draft. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 10 12:53:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08967 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5AGrIB07933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:53:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AGrIB07930 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:53:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08960; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:53:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PmL2-0000TD-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:51:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PmL2-0000TA-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:51:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AGo4B07817; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5AGnVB07783 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:49:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08836 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PmHN-0000SI-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:47:25 -0400 Received: from 000-231-282.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.142.143] helo=68.27.142.143 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PmHL-0000S6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:47:24 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610124721.00ba2038@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] List of current anti-spam headers? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:49:14 -0400 I remember an earlier message (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00149.html) by Bob Wyman suggesting that someone creates a list of anti-spam headers used today. I was thinking of doing that but would there be any purpose or utility for such list? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 10 20:30:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24188 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5B0UB607995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B0UBB07992 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24168; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PtTB-0003SR-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PtTA-0003SO-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:28:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B0SVB07900; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:28:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B0RrB07868 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:27:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24090 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PtQw-0003RM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:25:46 -0400 Received: from 000-242-594.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.187.25] helo=68.27.187.25) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PtQu-0003RI-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:25:46 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030610202721.00b9b7b8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Testing for humans when SENDING emails Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:27:23 -0400 Just ran across a CNET News.com article describing the concept, seems to be a useful way to make sure a human is sending email: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1015247.html Unfortunately, the article seems to be confuse this system with general C/R. Here are some quotes: ---snip--- "But in recent weeks, people using Yahoo Mail have found themselves asked to type in camouflaged letters before they can send an e-mail message, in an "image verification" method. " "Yahoo stressed that people sending mail through its system are not required to pass a challenge-response test for every message, or even for every mail-sending session." "Instead, in order to keep spammers guessing, Yahoo's system computes what the company calls a "user profile." This profile details the frequency with which the user normally sends messages and the length of time the user has held the account. The system issues a spam challenge when the user approaches an individually determined rate limit." ---snip--- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 10 21:59:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26130 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5B1xDK13764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:59:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B1xDB13761 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:59:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26116; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PurJ-0003ul-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:57:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PurI-0003ui-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:57:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B1vJB13709; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:57:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B1ulB13688 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:56:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26103 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Puox-0003uW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:54:39 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Puow-0003uS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:54:38 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr9.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id PGK48275; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-191-38.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.191.38]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIG44563; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Message-ID: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C32F9B.2DD75930" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Subject: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:56:42 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C32F9B.2DD75930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The list below presents a *partial* list of US Patents that are relevant to spam. This list misses many existing, relevant US patents and does not contain any of the many, many published patent applications. Also, there are no international patents in this list. My motivation for presenting the list is, in part, to demonstrate that the task of producing an exhaustive listing of spam-related IPR is going to be much more work than it may seem. Frankly, I think we're going to have to rely on the existing IETF procedures for IPR holders filing of IPR disclosures... I would also like to suggest that people who seek a comprehensive knowledge of existing anti-spam techniques should study the specifications and claims in these patents as one of many means to discover what methods others have thought would be useful in fighting spam. While patents are usually considered more of a hinderance than a help, they do serve to document (often poorly...) what some consider to be useful methods. Hopefully, someone will find inspiration in one of the patents below, or one not listed here, for some system that isn't already patented yet will help solve the problem. =20 bob wyman =20 * 6574658 3-Jun-03 System and method for secure classification of electronic mail=20 * 6560632 6-May-03 System and method for managing files in a distributed system using prioritization=20 * 6553358 22-Apr-03 Decision-theoretic approach to harnessing text classification for guiding automated action=20 * 6546416 8-Apr-03 Method and system for selectively blocking delivery of bulk electronic mail=20 * 6546390 8-Apr-03 Method and apparatus for evaluating relevancy of messages to users=20 * 6505167 7-Jan-03 Systems and methods for directing automated services for messaging and scheduling=20 * 6493007 10-Dec-02 Method and device for removing junk e-mail messages=20 * 6490574 3-Dec-02 Method and system for managing rules and events in a multi-user intelligent agent environment=20 * 6487586 26-Nov-02 Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient=20 * 6484197 19-Nov-02 Filtering incoming e-mail=20 * 6480885 12-Nov-02 Dynamically matching users for group communications based on a threshold degree of matching of sender and recipient predetermined acceptance criteria=20 * 6473758 29-Oct-02 Method and apparatus for private and restricted-use electronic addresses=20 * 6460050 1-Oct-02 Distributed content identification system=20 * 6453327 17-Sep-02 Method and apparatus for identifying and discarding junk electronic mail=20 * 6442589 27-Aug-02 Method and system for sorting and forwarding electronic messages and other data=20 * 6421709 16-Jul-02 E-mail filter and method thereof=20 * 6415304 2-Jul-02 Waiting prior to engaging in action for enhancement of automated service=20 * 6400810 4-Jun-02 Method and system for selective notification of E-mail messages * 6397205 28-May-02 Document categorization and evaluation via cross-entrophy=20 * 6393465 21-May-02 Junk electronic mail detector and eliminator=20 * 6381592 30-Apr-02 Candidate chaser=20 * 6370526 9-Apr-02 Self-adaptive method and system for providing a user-preferred ranking order of object sets=20 * 6363140 26-Mar-02 Dialable screening profile=20 * 6356935 12-Mar-02 Apparatus and method for an authenticated electronic userid=20 * 6332164 18-Dec-01 System for recipient control of E-mail message by sending complete version of message only with confirmation from recipient to receive message=20 * 6330590 11-Dec-01 Preventing delivery of unwanted bulk e-mail=20 * 6324569 27-Nov-01 Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient=20 * 6321267 20-Nov-01 Method and apparatus for filtering junk email=20 * 6266692 24-Jul-01 Method for blocking all unwanted e-mail (SPAM) using a header-based password=20 * 6249805 19-Jun-01 Method and system for filtering unauthorized electronic mail messages=20 * 6230188 8-May-01 System and method for providing a proxy identifier in an on-line directory=20 * 6199103 6-Mar-01 Electronic mail determination method and system and storage medium=20 * 6199102 6-Mar-01 Method and system for filtering electronic messages=20 * 6195698 27-Feb-01 Method for selectively restricting access to computer systems=20 * 6192114 20-Feb-01 Method and apparatus for billing a fee to a party initiating an electronic mail communication when the party is not on an authorization list associated with the party to whom the communication is directed=20 * 6185603 6-Feb-01 Method and system for delivery of e-mail and alerting messages=20 * 6185551 6-Feb-01 Web-based electronic mail service apparatus and method using full text and label indexing=20 * 6167435 26-Dec-00 Double opt-in.TM. method and system for verifying subscriptions to information distribution services=20 * 6167434 26-Dec-00 Computer code for removing junk e-mail messages=20 * 6161130 12-Dec-00 "Technique which utilizes a probabilistic classifier to detect ""junk"" e-mail by automatically updating a training and re-training the classifier based on the updated training set "=20 * 6112227 29-Aug-00 Filter-in method for reducing junk e-mail=20 * 6108691 22-Aug-00 Directory with options for access to and display of email addresses=20 * 6092101 18-Jul-00 Method for filtering mail messages for a plurality of client computers connected to a mail service system=20 * 6085321 4-Jul-00 Unique digital signature=20 * 6073167 6-Jun-00 Distribution limiter for network messaging=20 * 6073165 6-Jun-00 "Filtering computer network messages directed to a user's e-mail box based on user defined filters, and forwarding a filtered message to the user's receiver "=20 * 6072942 6-Jun-00 System and method of electronic mail filtering using interconnected nodes=20 * 6064878 16-May-00 Method for separately permissioned communication=20 * 6052709 18-Apr-00 Apparatus and method for controlling delivery of unsolicited electronic mail=20 * 6023723 8-Feb-00 Method and system for filtering unwanted junk e-mail utilizing a plurality of filtering mechanisms=20 * 6018761 25-Jan-00 System for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process=20 * 6003027 14-Dec-99 System and method for determining confidence levels for the results of a categorization system=20 * 5999967 7-Dec-99 Electronic mail filtering by electronic stamp=20 * 5999932 7-Dec-99 System and method for filtering unsolicited electronic mail messages using data matching and heuristic processing=20 * 5930479 27-Jul-99 Communications addressing system=20 * 5905777 18-May-99 E-mail paging system=20 * 5835087 10-Nov-98 System for generation of object profiles for a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects=20 * 5826022 20-Oct-98 Method and apparatus for receiving electronic mail=20 * 5796948 18-Aug-98 Offensive message interceptor for computers=20 * 5757891 26-May-98 Ever ready telephonic answering-machine for receiving and delivering electronic messages=20 * 5754939 19-May-98 System for generation of user profiles for a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects=20 * 5754938 19-May-98 Pseudonymous server for system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects=20 * 5742769 21-Apr-98 Directory with options for access to and display of email addresses=20 * 5724567 3-Mar-98 System for directing relevance-ranked data objects to computer users=20 * 5619648 8-Apr-97 Message filtering techniques=20 * 5613108 18-Mar-97 Electronic mail processing system and electronic mail processing method=20 * 5377354 27-Dec-94 Method and system for sorting and prioritizing electronic mail messages=20 * 5283856 1-Feb-94 Event-driven rule-based messaging system=20 * 5216603 1-Jun-93 Method and apparatus for structuring and managing human communications by explicitly defining the types of communications permitted between participants=20 * 5208748 4-May-93 Method and apparatus for structuring and managing human communications by explicitly defining the types of communications permitted between participants=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C32F9B.2DD75930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
   =20 The list below presents a *partial* list of US Patents that are relevant = to=20 spam. This list misses many existing, relevant US patents and does not = contain=20 any of the many, many published patent applications. Also, there are no=20 international patents in this list.
   =20 My motivation for presenting the list is, in part, to demonstrate that = the task=20 of producing an exhaustive listing of spam-related IPR is going to be = much more=20 work than it may seem. Frankly, I think we're going to have to rely on = the=20 existing IETF procedures for IPR holders filing of IPR=20 disclosures...
    I=20 would also like to suggest that people who seek a comprehensive = knowledge of=20 existing anti-spam techniques should study the specifications and claims = in=20 these patents as one of many means to discover what methods others have = thought=20 would be useful in fighting spam. While patents are usually considered = more of a=20 hinderance than a help, they do serve to document (often poorly...) what = some=20 consider to be useful methods. Hopefully, someone will find inspiration = in one=20 of the patents below, or one not listed here, for some system that isn't = already=20 patented yet will help solve the problem.
 
        = bob=20 wyman
 
  • 6574658=20 3-Jun-03 System and method for secure classification of electronic = mail=20
  • 6560632=20 6-May-03 System and method for managing files in a distributed system = using=20 prioritization=20
  • 6553358=20 22-Apr-03 Decision-theoretic approach to harnessing text = classification for=20 guiding automated action=20
  • 6546416=20 8-Apr-03 Method and system for selectively blocking delivery of bulk=20 electronic mail=20
  • 6546390=20 8-Apr-03 Method and apparatus for evaluating relevancy of messages to = users=20
  • 6505167=20 7-Jan-03 Systems and methods for directing automated services for = messaging=20 and scheduling=20
  • 6493007=20 10-Dec-02 Method and device for removing junk e-mail messages=20
  • 6490574=20 3-Dec-02 Method and system for managing rules and events in a = multi-user=20 intelligent agent environment=20
  • 6487586=20 26-Nov-02 Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a = message=20 distributor for the convenience of a recipient=20
  • 6484197=20 19-Nov-02 Filtering incoming e-mail=20
  • 6480885=20 12-Nov-02 Dynamically matching users for group communications based on = a=20 threshold degree of matching of sender and recipient predetermined = acceptance=20 criteria=20
  • 6473758=20 29-Oct-02 Method and apparatus for private and restricted-use = electronic=20 addresses=20
  • 6460050=20 1-Oct-02 Distributed content identification system=20
  • 6453327=20 17-Sep-02 Method and apparatus for identifying and discarding junk = electronic=20 mail=20
  • 6442589=20 27-Aug-02 Method and system for sorting and forwarding electronic = messages and=20 other data=20
  • 6421709=20 16-Jul-02 E-mail filter and method thereof=20
  • 6415304=20 2-Jul-02 Waiting prior to engaging in action for enhancement of = automated=20 service=20
  • 6400810=20 4-Jun-02 Method and system for selective notification of E-mail = messages=20
  • 6397205=20 28-May-02 Document categorization and evaluation via cross-entrophy=20
  • 6393465=20 21-May-02 Junk electronic mail detector and eliminator=20
  • 6381592=20 30-Apr-02 Candidate chaser=20
  • 6370526=20 9-Apr-02 Self-adaptive method and system for providing a = user-preferred=20 ranking order of object sets=20
  • 6363140=20 26-Mar-02 Dialable screening profile=20
  • 6356935=20 12-Mar-02 Apparatus and method for an authenticated electronic userid=20
  • 6332164=20 18-Dec-01 System for recipient control of E-mail message by sending = complete=20 version of message only with confirmation from recipient to receive = message=20
  • 6330590=20 11-Dec-01 Preventing delivery of unwanted bulk e-mail=20
  • 6324569=20 27-Nov-01 Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a = message=20 distributor for the convenience of a recipient=20
  • 6321267=20 20-Nov-01 Method and apparatus for filtering junk email=20
  • 6266692=20 24-Jul-01 Method for blocking all unwanted e-mail (SPAM) using a = header-based=20 password=20
  • 6249805=20 19-Jun-01 Method and system for filtering unauthorized electronic mail = messages=20
  • 6230188=20 8-May-01 System and method for providing a proxy identifier in an = on-line=20 directory=20
  • 6199103=20 6-Mar-01 Electronic mail determination method and system and storage = medium=20
  • 6199102=20 6-Mar-01 Method and system for filtering electronic messages=20
  • 6195698=20 27-Feb-01 Method for selectively restricting access to computer = systems=20
  • 6192114=20 20-Feb-01 Method and apparatus for billing a fee to a party initiating = an=20 electronic mail communication when the party is not on an = authorization list=20 associated with the party to whom the communication is directed=20
  • 6185603=20 6-Feb-01 Method and system for delivery of e-mail and alerting = messages=20
  • 6185551=20 6-Feb-01 Web-based electronic mail service apparatus and method using = full=20 text and label indexing=20
  • 6167435=20 26-Dec-00 Double opt-in.TM. method and system for verifying = subscriptions to=20 information distribution services=20
  • 6167434=20 26-Dec-00 Computer code for removing junk e-mail messages=20
  • 6161130=20 12-Dec-00 "Technique which utilizes a probabilistic classifier to = detect=20 ""junk"" e-mail by automatically updating a training and re-training = the=20 classifier based on the updated training set "=20
  • 6112227=20 29-Aug-00 Filter-in method for reducing junk e-mail=20
  • 6108691=20 22-Aug-00 Directory with options for access to and display of email = addresses=20
  • 6092101=20 18-Jul-00 Method for filtering mail messages for a plurality of client = computers connected to a mail service system=20
  • 6085321=20 4-Jul-00 Unique digital signature=20
  • 6073167=20 6-Jun-00 Distribution limiter for network messaging=20
  • 6073165=20 6-Jun-00 "Filtering computer network messages directed to a user's = e-mail box=20 based on user defined filters, and forwarding a filtered message to = the user's=20 receiver "=20
  • 6072942=20 6-Jun-00 System and method of electronic mail filtering using = interconnected=20 nodes=20
  • 6064878=20 16-May-00 Method for separately permissioned communication=20
  • 6052709=20 18-Apr-00 Apparatus and method for controlling delivery of unsolicited = electronic mail=20
  • 6023723=20 8-Feb-00 Method and system for filtering unwanted junk e-mail = utilizing a=20 plurality of filtering mechanisms=20
  • 6018761=20 25-Jan-00 System for adding to electronic mail messages information = obtained=20 from sources external to the electronic mail transport process=20
  • 6003027=20 14-Dec-99 System and method for determining confidence levels for the = results=20 of a categorization system=20
  • 5999967=20 7-Dec-99 Electronic mail filtering by electronic stamp=20
  • 5999932=20 7-Dec-99 System and method for filtering unsolicited electronic mail = messages=20 using data matching and heuristic processing=20
  • 5930479=20 27-Jul-99 Communications addressing system=20
  • 5905777=20 18-May-99 E-mail paging system=20
  • 5835087=20 10-Nov-98 System for generation of object profiles for a system for = customized=20 electronic identification of desirable objects=20
  • 5826022=20 20-Oct-98 Method and apparatus for receiving electronic mail=20
  • 5796948=20 18-Aug-98 Offensive message interceptor for computers=20
  • 5757891=20 26-May-98 Ever ready telephonic answering-machine for receiving and = delivering=20 electronic messages=20
  • 5754939=20 19-May-98 System for generation of user profiles for a system for = customized=20 electronic identification of desirable objects=20
  • 5754938=20 19-May-98 Pseudonymous server for system for customized electronic=20 identification of desirable objects=20
  • 5742769=20 21-Apr-98 Directory with options for access to and display of email = addresses=20
  • 5724567=20 3-Mar-98 System for directing relevance-ranked data objects to = computer users=20
  • 5619648=20 8-Apr-97 Message filtering techniques=20
  • 5613108=20 18-Mar-97 Electronic mail processing system and electronic mail = processing=20 method=20
  • 5377354=20 27-Dec-94 Method and system for sorting and prioritizing electronic = mail=20 messages=20
  • 5283856=20 1-Feb-94 Event-driven rule-based messaging system=20
  • 5216603=20 1-Jun-93 Method and apparatus for structuring and managing human=20 communications by explicitly defining the types of communications = permitted=20 between participants=20
  • 5208748=20 4-May-93 Method and apparatus for structuring and managing human=20 communications by explicitly defining the types of communications = permitted=20 between participants
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C32F9B.2DD75930-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 10 22:54:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27409 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5B2sLX18042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:54:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B2sKB18039 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:54:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27402; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Pvid-0004Ba-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:52:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Pvid-0004BX-00; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:52:11 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B2qUB17952; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:52:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B2p2B17910 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:51:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27306 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:50:56 -0400 (EDT) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PvfR-0004AI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:48:53 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PvfQ-00049z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:48:53 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip2-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.2]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 43895369B7 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:50:39 +4400 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: <20030611025039.GA1809@m433> References: <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:50:39 -0400 On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:47:00AM -0400, Eric Dean wrote > I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing > a new RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of > it, then so be it. I'll proceed br producing a draft with real > 2822-type headers. > > However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate > in the meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > 2822 headers Has any consideration been given to doing this at the SMTP stage rather than as part of DATA: ? E.g. an EHLO which tries to negotiate a set of features, including CHRE:. If the destination MTA says "Yes, I do CHRE:", then do a "CHRE:" step just after the "RCPT:" step. Advantages to this include... 1) Spam runs from compromised home machines (Jeem.pv and Guzu) with forged "From:" addresses don't mailbomb innocent 3rd parties if rejected at SMTP time. 2) Yes, I realize that the ISP's MTA will have to keep state information regarding the luser's preferences. However, it comes down to either a) ISP's server doing it (maybe luser enters pre-emptive whitelist/blocklist via web interface), or b) luser administering it on his own MUA (Aunt Ethel or your parents, yeah sure) 3) Clients can change MUA's, restore backed-up drives, format and re-install, access email via web interface or laptop or handheld, etc, etc, without worrying about replicating/propagating a small distributed database over several client MUA's and devices. An XML structure to download and upload settings would also be nice for synchronizing multiple accounts at different ISPs. 4) This would require changes in MTA rather than MUA. The top 10 or twenty ISP's on the planet probably have 100,000,000 customers. Questions a) is it going to be easier to implement changes at a couple of dozen locations (plus multiple redundant MTAs) or a hundred million locations (multiplied by the number of devices/MUA's the clients use to access their email) ? b) as per 2-b) do you expect Aunt Ethel to be competent to download and install updated MUA's ? Hint, consider how many people use the default browser/mailer/newsreader that came with their OS. 5) Doing C/R via embedded headers means having to accept the entire email, because headers are part of DATA:. This uses additional bandwidth, even if the destination MTA issues a 550. 6) Which is going to to impose more load on an MTA a) handling an extra stage in the SMTP negotiation b) accepting the entire email and parsing the entire body looking for C/R headers 7) What about mailing lists (like this one for instance) that use b0rken 2-bit defaults where hitting "r" to reply sends a reply not to the list but to the individual sender ? How difficult is it to insert a "Reply-To:" header? How are MUAs going to handle Envelope-From. Don't talk to me about "Return-Path:". Many ISPs don't generate this on incoming email, many MUAs don't use it, and your Aunt Ethel doesn't know what it is, let alone the difference between "MAIL FROM:" and "From:". BTW, for those who despise b0rken mailing-list software, here is the answer, via procmail. Generate your own "Reply-To:" header... :0 fhw * ^X-BeenThere:.*asrg@ietf\.org * !^Reply-To: asrg@ietf\.org | formail -i "Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org (ASRG list)" ISP-wide implementations that send challenges via regular email address some, but not all of the above issues. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 11 00:05:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28457 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5B456L21908 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:05:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B456B21905 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:05:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28452; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PwpA-0004Qp-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PwpA-0004Qm-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:03:00 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B41JB21774; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:01:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B40GB21725 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28409 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:13 -0400 (EDT) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PwkV-0004Pz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:58:11 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PwkU-0004Pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:58:10 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip2-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.2]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CE4F736C81 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:29 -0400 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Message-ID: <20030611040029.GB1809@m433> References: <200306051925.h55JPM4j015507@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:29 -0400 On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 06:31:33PM -0400, mathew wrote > Charging the recipient is never going to work. > > Even assuming for the moment that we could magically solve the problem > of unsolicited e-mail, such that users would only get charged for stuff > they had actually asked for, there's an insurmountable problem: the > companies who want to do marketing on the Internet will never go for it. > > Reason being, nobody (plus or minus a handful of people) will pay to > receive marketing messages. Which means that if your vision of > receiver-pays happened, e-mail based marketing would die a rapid death. Ana-one, ana-two, ana-three... awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. In plain English... too f###ing bad. > Many non-marketing mailing lists would die rapidly too. How many > mailing lists that you subscribe to would you still subscribe to if you > had to pay by the message? Would you even subscribe to *this* mailing > list if every e-mail was costing you money? > > Users don't like per-message or per-minute receiving fees on services > they pay for. Look at mobile phones--the US has lagged behind Europe in > mobile phone usage because users must pay by the minute to *receive* > calls. I subscribe to IStop.com. At http://www.istop.com/residential.html they list the basic monthly bandwidth quotas, and surcharges for any additional bandwidth. I used to subscribe to Sympatico.ca. At http://www.bell.sympatico.ca/mainNavigation.do?currentPath=highspeedPath they, too, list the basic monthly bandwidth quotas, and surcharges for any additional bandwidth. Even Sympatico's modest 10 gig limit isn't going to be strained by any reasonable amount of confirmed opt-in mailing lists like this one. I'm not into file-sharing. The only time I break 2 gigs in a month is when I download the latest linux distro. Given a 10 megabyte inbox at the ISP, I'd have to run a cron job draining it every 7 hours, day in day out, just to download one gigabyte of email per month, assuming that the inbox filled up every 7 hours. That would cost me $3.00/month at IStop, assuming I was already at or above my basic bandwidth quota. I'd run out of time to read that much junk mail long before I ran out of money to pay for it. > How much junk mail would you agree to receive if you had to pay the > USPS for received mail? In fact, early on the postal system was > "recipient pays". That scheme fell apart in no time. I have a dirty secret for you... the end-user already pays. It's just not itemized in their bill. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 11 02:00:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01420 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5B60UW28903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:00:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B60TB28892 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:00:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA00852; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Pycn-0004rg-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:58:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Pycm-0004ra-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:58:20 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B5wQB28778; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:58:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B5vEB28731 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:57:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00377 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:57:10 -0400 (EDT) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PyZe-0004r1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:55:06 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PyZe-0004qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:55:06 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip2-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.2]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C490736B2B for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:57:25 -0400 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... Message-ID: <20030611055725.GC1809@m433> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:57:25 -0400 On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:04:02PM -1000, Peter Kay wrote > I tried to word that paragraph carefully but probably stumbled. Either > that or you missed the "and". What I'm saying in that last paragraph is > that if I've sent you email before AND I've not explicitly asked not to > receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving > email from you. This reminds me of articles on some of the direct-marketing sites... The first couple of paragraphs define confirmed opt-in, which everybody agrees with. The remaining 95% of the article tap-dances to a pre-determined conclusion that if you click your heels and dance around a faerie ring widdershins, then you can send advertising to people who didn't ask for it, and it's *NOT* "really" spam. This attitude on the part of corporations that holds back e-commerce. People are afraid of ending up on lists each time they buy something online, so they don't buy online. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 11 04:37:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29473 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5B8bR518948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:37:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B8bRB18937 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:37:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29457; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Q14i-0005sq-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:35:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Q14h-0005sn-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:35:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B8XQB18158; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:33:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5B8WEB18117 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:32:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29414 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Q0zf-0005sS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:30:07 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Q0zf-0005sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:30:07 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 39B46DE43; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:32:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030611083149.GB22193@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] RMX+DMP = SPF: a technical approach Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:31:53 -0400 Hadmut Danisch has previously publicized RMX on this list and elsewhere. Gordon Fecyk's DMP proposal competes with RMX. SPF is a hybrid of the two approaches. Since I have not received any showstopping criticism, I went ahead and put up a user-friendly web site at http://spf.pobox.com/ which describes SPF in detail, links to an Internet Draft proposal, and answers common objections. Code is being written to support SPF. Please do not post your objections here; there are now dedicated mailing lists for SPF. To subscribe, email subscribe-spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com or subscribe-spf-announce@v2.listbox.com Please read http://spf.pobox.com/objections.html and http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html before posting on the discuss list. (The discuss list will be CC'ed on all announcements, so there's no need to be on both. I will also post important SPF news to ASRG.) cheers meng _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 11 15:37:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26108 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5BJaaK28498 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:36:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJaam28495 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:36:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25828; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBMb-000329-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:34:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBMb-000325-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:34:29 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJVim28314; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:31:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJTkm28235 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:29:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23924 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBFy-0002zw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:27:38 -0400 Received: from bay2-f102.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.102] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBFy-0002zg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:27:38 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:27:54 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:27:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Hotmail used for scripted spam (from SlashDot) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2003 19:27:54.0593 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E635510:01C3304F] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:27:54 -0200 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by www1.ietf.org id h5BJVim28314 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5BJaam28495 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: ...... >Note, that a CRI protocol will not help here since the HotMail C/R system >will authenticate the sender. Only active involvement by the ISP and >limiting amount of outgoing email will help. RMX will not resolve this >issue either. ..... Hmm, very quiet on this one. Is we then back to square one? What will this mean for other web mail vendors. We do have a number of Perl/php-scripts out, to batch connect to retreive mail from Hotmail, Lycos and others, modifyable to send instead. I then thought that C/R systems are a bit of a colossus on clay feet, but most discussion during may/june seem to have been about which C/R method is best, not that much about if it's practical or not or simpler methods to C/R and RMX, that forces more us to do more drastic changes of our infrastructure. About two months ago, I presented a complementary methodology for spam detection, that I call the "Earnest" method, because it is based on the only earnest data that exists in the spams, URL's and phone numbers. At that time Kee Hinckley had some serious views about my ideas and views, so I spent some time to make a more thorough survey, increasing data from my original 6.000 own spams with some 40.000 from the Spamhaus archives and another 15.000 from a guy active in european RIPE's spam discussion list, i.e. a total of 60.000 spams. Hopeful I have a more statistical significant amount of spam to revisit my idea. For the background, from my own spams, I extracted 1.500 unique URL's and phone nos, from Spamhaus another 5.000 and from RIPE the last 2.500, on the pattern base something.com, something.biz, something.co.tw and so on. After sorting my own and Spamhaus together, I had 1.200 that was common, giving a total of 5.300 unique entries. After adding the RIPE data, another 800 was common, giving a total of ca 7.000 unique URL's and numbers. When visually reviewing them, I also found that many where so alike in naming structure, that they obviously is related and that the data probably represent no more than 3-4.000 real web sites. My conclusion is that even if we deal with 100:s of millions of spams, we, as Spamhaus estimates with the numbers of real active spammers (+200), only deal with a limited number of domains and phone numbers, maybe less than 100.000, so if we concentrate the effort, as I laid out in the Earnest method presentation, to extract that _real_ data, it makes the filtering task easier and faster and require less resources. As I said last time, the key part is that if you send a spam, you, as a spammer, need to make it easy for the user to go to the site, so you get your dues, i.e. supply a working url or readable phone number. If you code that url in anyway other than to code the whole page with base64 (a quit possible spammer solution), as "%xx" or a "&#xxx;" web char code, you forces your target to type in the whole URL, which leads to a drastic reduced hit rate for the spammer's customer. Simplicity is the main driver behind spam. If the process don't produce, the customers will not use spam, a simple economic maxim IT people often tend to forget. And as far as I found in my tests, you can't not "char" code neither "a href" nor the "http://" statements of an URL, because they will then not work. Therefore these parts will always be in clear text and grepable. If those lines is decoded for any char encoding of the addresses and compared in an case insensitive and free text search, they can't hide, if their URL is there, you get a hit. And if they try to put in more URL's, they still don't get away. They could try to disguise the address with a line break in the address, but if the filter have a check for breaks before the closing ">" that can be handled. This simpler than analyzing the whole letter. One of Kee's objections, where that it would be a resource demanding filter. After studying the issue further, my only concern is a increased usage of the mime coding, the tests I've done with sed based char decoding and nawk "; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5BJfXM29664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:41:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJfXm29661 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:41:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28151; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBRP-00034b-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:39:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBRO-00034Y-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:39:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJc3m29484; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:38:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJbEm28751 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:37:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26185 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBND-00032J-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:35:07 -0400 Received: from 000-257-319.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.245.18] helo=68.27.245.18 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBNA-00032E-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:35:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611153623.00bb2e20@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Stealing IP address ownership to send spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:36:25 -0400 See the following SecurityFocus article (http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5654) and the related SlashDot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/06/11/1853254.shtml). Some quotes: --snip-- "The most rapacious consumers of the stolen address space are spammers trying to stay a step ahead of anti-spam blacklists. A /16 provides a lot of addresses to hide behind, a lot of launch pads for unwanted e-mail, squats for hastily-erected spamvertised websites, and attack points from which one can scan the Internet for misconfigured proxy servers-- useful for laundering even more spam. Some anti-spam investigators believe an underground economy exists in which a large block of address space is broken down and re-sold in smaller chunks like a boosted Acura in a chop-shop. "Money is changing hands," says Kai Schlichting, a veteran network engineer who tracks down stolen IP space in his spare time. "I wouldn't be surprised if you could sell a /16 for $100,000 in bits and pieces." " But elsewhere the scam has intensified in recent months, with at least seven large allocations found newly-diverted, and countless other cases suspected. Last month anti-spam groups and concerned network operators formed a private mailing list to investigate the phenomenon outside the view of cyberjackers. "There's anything up to 100 of these blocks out there on the loose," estimates Richard Cox, an IT forensics guru with Mandarin Technology in the U.K. "That's the magnitude that we're dealing with here." "Network operators were galvanized by a particularly brazen case in April, when a trail of spam led to the discovery that no-less than six /16s -- nearly 400,000 addresses -- had been misappropriated from Trafalgar House, a British construction and shipping conglomerate that's now part of Aker Kvaerner, headquartered in Norway. From the U.K., Cox discovered that the perpetrators conned the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) into changing the contact information for the space. One of the /16s was traced to a Dutch spammer, and the other five to a mysterious company called "Fedfinancial Corp." Fedfinancial managed to convince ARIN that it had been contracted to provide network management services for Trafalgar. ARIN won't say exactly how it was swindled, but registration records show the grifters had an authentic-looking e-mail address at a newly-minted "traf-infosystems.net" domain, and a genuine street address with matching voice and fax telephone numbers. But the phone numbers ring to Nevada and Offshore Business Formation, a company that sets up corporations for a fee, and takes orders over the Web. Public records show that they incorporated Fedfinancial as a Nevada corporation last January, on behalf of an unnamed client. The street address is also theirs. " "But like the mob moving in on a neighborhood poker game, spammers have turned a once-harmless misdemeanor into an organized and well-funded scheme. Internet defenders shudder at the thought of large portions of the net's real-estate under the control of anonymous rogue entities. "There's no accountability. You don't know who really owns this particular address space. You have no way of finding out," says Schlichting." Some even worry that malefactors will go a step further, and begin hijacking address space that's already in active use. "This whole episode has identified huge weaknesses in the Internet's own infrastructure," says Cox. "What we've seen happen is trivial compared to what we've seen possible." --snip-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 11 15:56:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10134 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5BJtnL30317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:55:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJtnm30314 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:55:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09416; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBfC-0003Ay-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:53:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBfB-0003Av-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:53:41 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJq7m30201; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:52:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BJp5m30156 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:51:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03538 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:51:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBad-00039t-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:48:59 -0400 Received: from 000-257-319.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.245.18] helo=68.27.245.18 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QBaa-00039q-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:48:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030611154837.00b90258@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:50:50 -0400 At 09:56 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >[..] > My motivation for presenting the list is, in part, to demonstrate > that the task of producing an exhaustive listing of spam-related IPR is > going to be much more work than it may seem. Frankly, I think we're going > to have to rely on the existing IETF procedures for IPR holders filing of > IPR disclosures... > > [..] Based on Bob's comments above, is there a need for us to maintain a list such as one that I have (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html)? Or should we wait until the IPR holders approach us? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 12:48:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18303 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5CGmNn06344 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGmMm06341 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18288; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVDK-00047M-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVDJ-00047J-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:13 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGklm06246; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGbYm05476 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:37:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17946 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QV2r-00041Y-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:35:25 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QV2r-00041M-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:35:25 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AC8825C011E; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:38:32 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:41:58 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <0b01bd69-a4b6-4b84-b67e-e13d822b2b80> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C33100.E045F463" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: good example of ASRG proposal? Thread-Index: AcMxAUGoq2RoyUgrR9e1vxiiUmMp1Q== From: "Peter Kay" To: Subject: [Asrg] good example of ASRG proposal? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:37:12 -1000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C33100.E045F463 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We'd like to submit some proposals of anti-spam approaches to the group for review. We'd also like our proposal to be as consistent as possible with other proposals already submitted. Paul Judge has posted several guidelines which we will follow. Ideally I'd like to start our document based on what this group believes represents "best practices". Which submitted proposal does this group think is currently the best one?=20 =20 Peter Kay, President TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com =20 The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C33100.E045F463 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
We'd = like to submit=20 some proposals of anti-spam approaches to the group for review.  = We'd also=20 like our proposal to be as consistent as possible with other proposals = already=20 submitted.  Paul Judge has posted several guidelines which we will = follow.=20 Ideally I'd like to start our document based on what this group = believes=20 represents "best practices".   Which submitted proposal = does this=20 group think is currently the best one?
 
Peter Kay,=20 President
TitanKey=20 Software
Web: = www.titankey.com
The = only technology=20 that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent
 
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C33100.E045F463-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 12:48:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18320 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5CGmSv06362 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGmSm06359 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18293; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVDP-00047S-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVDO-00047P-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:18 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGkLm06152; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGWum04405 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:32:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17780 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QUyO-0003yV-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:30:48 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QUyN-0003yH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:30:47 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AB67251011E; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:33:43 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:37:09 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Thread-Index: AcMwWo6bXw1UmGroRPq7o1ijyy2kEgApcFcQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5CGWvm04406 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:32:23 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think its best to let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just say "these are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that makes it clean and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:51 AM > To: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > At 09:56 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: > >[..] > > My motivation for presenting the list is, in part, to > demonstrate > > that the task of producing an exhaustive listing of > spam-related IPR is > > going to be much more work than it may seem. Frankly, I > think we're going > > to have to rely on the existing IETF procedures for IPR > holders filing of > > IPR disclosures... > > > > [..] > > Based on Bob's comments above, is there a need for us to > maintain a list > such as one that I have > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html)? Or > should we wait > until the IPR holders approach us? > > Yakov > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 13:38:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20324 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5CHcMN10887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CHcLm10883 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20302; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVzg-0004cy-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVzg-0004cv-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CHaHm09756; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGr1m06566 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18416 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVHo-00049L-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:50:52 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVHn-00049I-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:50:51 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr9.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id PGM63340; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-191-38.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.191.38]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIK50996; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] good example of ASRG proposal? Message-ID: <004901c33103$0f572c60$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01C330E1.88458C60" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:52:50 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C330E1.88458C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable An exceptionally important "Best Practice" is that you should submit your proposal in the form of an Internet Draft if it is something more than just an off-the-cuff suggestion. The easiest way to generate such a thing is to use the XML2RFC system maintained by Marshal Rose at: http://xml.resource.org/ .=20 =20 bob wyman -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Kay Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:37 PM To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] good example of ASRG proposal? We'd like to submit some proposals of anti-spam approaches to the group for review. We'd also like our proposal to be as consistent as possible with other proposals already submitted. Paul Judge has posted several guidelines which we will follow. Ideally I'd like to start our document based on what this group believes represents "best practices". Which submitted proposal does this group think is currently the best one?=20 =20 Peter Kay, President TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com =20 The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent =20 ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C330E1.88458C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
An=20 exceptionally important "Best Practice" is that you should submit your = proposal=20 in the form of an Internet Draft if it is something more than just = an=20 off-the-cuff suggestion. The easiest way to generate such a thing is to = use the=20 XML2RFC system maintained by Marshal Rose at: http://xml.resource.org/ .=20
 
       =20 bob = wyman
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Peter=20 Kay
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:37 PM
To:=20 Asrg@ietf.org
Subject: [Asrg] good example of ASRG=20 proposal?

We'd = like to=20 submit some proposals of anti-spam approaches to the group for = review. =20 We'd also like our proposal to be as consistent as possible with other = proposals already submitted.  Paul Judge has posted several = guidelines=20 which we will follow. Ideally I'd like to start our document based=20 on what this group believes represents "best=20 practices".   Which submitted proposal does this group = think is=20 currently the best one?
 
Peter Kay, = President
TitanKey=20 Software
Web: = www.titankey.com
The = only=20 technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even = sent
 
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C330E1.88458C60-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 13:38:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20357 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5CHcVg10923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CHcVm10919 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20313; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVzq-0004dC-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVzp-0004d9-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:21 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CHaPm09791; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGrIm06583 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:53:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18426 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVI6-00049i-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:51:10 -0400 Received: from 000-234-907.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.212] helo=68.27.156.212) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QVI4-00049X-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:51:09 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612125249.00ba5b60@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Court denies Mailblocks' injunction request Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:52:50 -0400 Take a look at this News.com article: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1016250.html Some quotes: "A Washington district court this week denied a request for a preliminary injunction by Mailblocks, an antispam software company that claims rival Spam Arrest is violating its patented technology. " "The court ruled in favor of Spam Arrest's motion to stay the request despite its admission of patent infringement. Spam Arrest argued instead that Mailblocks' patents were invalid because of "prior art"--that is, because systems for challenge-response technology predate Mailblocks' own. The company also requested that similar pending patent complaints by Mailblocks, such as one against EarthLink, should be combined and heard as one by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, which specializes in hearing multiple complaints. " " The company has already dropped a similar suit against MailFrontier because it entered into discussions, he said. Also, the company expects to announce its first licensing partner later this week" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 21:42:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04290 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:42:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D1g1b10711 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:42:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D1g0m10708 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:42:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04264; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QdXi-000019-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:39:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QdXi-000014-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:39:50 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CIh1a16012; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:43:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CIglm15981 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22587 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QX01-0005EH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:40:37 -0400 Received: from 000-234-907.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.212] helo=68.27.156.212 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QWzz-0005EE-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:40:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612143707.00bb7c90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:22 -0400 At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think its best to >let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the >unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just say "these >are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that makes it clean >and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for example - they are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not approached, and since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must approach them to solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. Otherwise, we might be working on a standard only to find out that it is patented. As for the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of anti-spam, I am agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog all patents in the world. Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad business methods patents such as the MailBlocks patents. 2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit information about it. 3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of the group as they send them. P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us know some details on your IP. Feel free to use the template (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 21:45:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04425 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D1jGg10908 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:45:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D1jGm10905 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:45:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04405; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qdas-00003B-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:43:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qdar-000037-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:43:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CKP2a21943; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:25:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CKOvm21906 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:24:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25725 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QYau-0005i5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:22:48 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QYau-0005i2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:22:48 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 1BC97DE41; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:24:50 -0400 (EDT) To: asrg@ietf.org From: mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) Message-Id: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> Subject: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Executive Summary: Matching sender domain with client IP is a strong predictor of spamminess. http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.png Analysis: I analyzed 6,810,374 unique deliveries over a two-month period whose senders claimed to be from aol.com, hotmail.com, and yahoo.com. Those deliveries came from 1,885,248 distinct email senders. I classified those senders using statistical methods into 1,775,660 spammer addresses and 109,588 nonspammer addresses. Of the 1,775,660 addresses which my classifier decided were more likely to be spammers than not-spammers, 4,188 actually originated from aol, hotmail, or yahoo. That is a statistically insignificant number and reflects more on the imperfection of my classifier scheme than anything else. The classifier scheme is described at http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/. Conclusion 1: aol, hotmail, and yahoo have successfully implemented outbound antispam technology, ie. ways to ensure that only humans sign up for their accounts, or limits on per-account outbound message volume. The analysis is described in detail at http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.txt The important result of the analysis is a log/log scatterplot http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.png Each dot represents one or more sender addresses; the color of the dot represents whether the domain matched the client IP --- sort of a proto-SPF, using PTR instead. There is a collision problem but on the whole the output communicates pretty well. Conclusion 2: Client IPs whose PTR do not match their sender domains are more likely to be spam than not. But that means a scheme like SPF/DMP/RMX should work nicely. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 12 23:48:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07044 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D3mSF19016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D3mNm19012 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07037; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QfVz-0000hx-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:46:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QfVz-0000hu-00; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:46:11 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CIO1a14355; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:24:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CIN6m14331 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21811 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QWgz-000546-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:20:57 -0400 Received: from 000-234-907.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.212] helo=68.27.156.212) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QWgx-000543-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:20:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612142244.00bbc9c0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] MailBlocks and ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:22:45 -0400 I have been in touch with someone at MailBlocks, Inc. regarding their patents. First of all, MailBlocks's has submitted the following IPR template, which I added to the IPR document (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html): ------ The IP Holder states that its position with respect to licensing any IP claims disclosed above that would be necessary to implement the technology required by an IETF Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Standard (or other IETF document) is as follows (select one option only): (X) Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a willingness to license in some form to all implementers; otherwise, "Unwilling to License to All Implementers" must be selected) ------ They had further informed me that they are willing to review any anti-spam proposal regarding their IPR claims and in general want to help the IETF/IRTF and the ASRG. They further informed me that as of now, they feel that their IP covers any C/R system that interacts between a computer and a human being. Something like the CRI protocol that Eric Dean is working on, where two computers are interacting with each other, they are not sure about, but will study it and issue an opinion. Obviously, unless the whole Internet suddenly deploys the CRI protocol, there will be interaction with humans, so this might be irrelevant. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 01:12:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09243 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D5CIk25411 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:12:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D5CIm25408 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:12:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09238; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QgpE-0001Gj-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:10:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QgpD-0001Gg-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:10:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D3AXa16490; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:10:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D39Vm16462 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:09:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA06425 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QeuG-0000Yq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:07:12 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QeuF-0000Yn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:07:11 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2443688; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:09:16 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> To: mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:06:27 -0400 At 4:24 PM -0400 6/12/03, Meng Weng Wong wrote: >Conclusion 2: Client IPs whose PTR do not match their sender domains are >more likely to be spam than not. > >But that means a scheme like SPF/DMP/RMX should work nicely. As would turning off your mail server. How many false positives would such a scheme result in? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 01:24:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09436 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D5NWj25825 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:23:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D5NVm25822 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:23:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09427; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qh05-0001Jp-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:21:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qh05-0001Jm-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:21:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D2o2a14863; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:50:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D2nhm14819 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:49:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06074 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QebF-0000Sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:47:33 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QebD-0000Sk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:47:32 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5D2nWpl007608 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:49:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306130249.h5D2nWpl007608@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:49:32 -0600 (MDT) > From: mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) > ... > Conclusion 1: aol, hotmail, and yahoo have successfully implemented > outbound antispam technology, ie. ways to ensure that only humans sign > up for their accounts, or limits on per-account outbound message volume. Success is certainly is fleeting. See http://www.google.com/search?q=hotmail+dav http://news.google.com/news?q=hotmail+dav http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141514 I've also seen recent reports from usually reliable sources that Microsoft's account creation mechanism has been "scripted." A summmary of all of that is that in recent weeks spammers have been significant spam through Hotmail systems. This goes to show that questions (not just statements) about whether characteristics of spam (or spam defenses) occur some of the time or most of the time should be view critically. Measurements of spam can be useful for showing that a characteristic (practically?) always or never occurs in spam or that a tactic of spammers or spam defenses always or never works. Concluding much from a measurement that says "X happens 90%" (or 9%) is often an error. > ... > Conclusion 2: Client IPs whose PTR do not match their sender domains are > more likely to be spam than not. > > But that means a scheme like SPF/DMP/RMX should work nicely. Does that imply that your definition of "work nicely" allows as many as 50% false positives? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 03:21:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23746 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:21:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D7L1413475 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:21:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D7L1m13472 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:21:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23734; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qipo-0002Ir-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:18:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qipn-0002Io-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:18:51 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D5o1a27651; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:50:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D5nYm27622 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:49:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09839 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QhPH-0001RE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:47:23 -0400 Received: from 000-258-487.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.249.170] helo=68.27.249.170 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QhPE-0001R4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:47:21 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613014413.00b9d768@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:44:14 -0400 At 11:06 PM 6/12/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 4:24 PM -0400 6/12/03, Meng Weng Wong wrote: >>Conclusion 2: Client IPs whose PTR do not match their sender domains are >>more likely to be spam than not. >> >>But that means a scheme like SPF/DMP/RMX should work nicely. > >As would turning off your mail server. >How many false positives would such a scheme result in? >-- >Kee Hinckley >http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account >http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > >I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept >responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate >everyone else's. Meng, Do you have some data on false positives? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 04:07:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24691 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D87J117144 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:07:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D87Jm17132 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:07:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA24677; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QjYb-0002cz-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:05:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QjYb-0002cw-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 04:05:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CMU1a30377; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:30:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CMTum30347 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:29:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00038 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QaXq-0006dl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:27:46 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QaXp-0006dC-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:27:45 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AF101A000F4; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:30:40 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:34:06 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <8ff27dce-29e7-4c0c-95b6-abb2ca5e3b73> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Thread-Index: AcMxFQCLwKN7rfJORwG0TLcKQXfy2gAHVxUw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5CMTum30348 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:29:20 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think your suggestion is a very good and balanced one. And I'm going to fully disclose our IPR. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:01 AM > To: Peter Kay; Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > >IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think > its best to > >let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the > >unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just > say "these > >are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that > makes it clean > >and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. > > In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for > example - they > are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not > approached, and > since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must > approach them to > solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. > Otherwise, we > might be working on a standard only to find out that it is > patented. As for > the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of > anti-spam, I am > agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog > all patents in > the world. > > Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following > policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad > business methods patents > such as the MailBlocks patents. > 2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit > information > about it. > 3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of > the group as > they send them. > > P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us > know some > details on your IP. Feel free to use the template > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). > > Yakov > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 05:06:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25870 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5D962421517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D962m21514 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25818; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QkTQ-0002xe-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:03:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QkTP-0002xb-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:03:51 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D2x2a15117; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:59:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D2wUm15096 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:58:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06222 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qejk-0000VN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:56:20 -0400 Received: from 000-236-176.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.161.211] helo=68.27.161.211 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qeji-0000VI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:56:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612224337.00b9d768@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com, asrg@ietf.org, "Peter Kay" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well In-Reply-To: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:58:04 -0400 At 04:24 PM 6/12/2003 -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: >[..] > Matching sender domain with client IP is a strong predictor of spamminess. We already know that, that's why people are pushing the RMX-like proposals to make sure that the basic flaw in SMTP is taken care off. However, there are still some gray areas such as people who are traveling, and domains providing email service for other domains. >[..] > The classifier scheme is described at >http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/. Your classifier scheme seems to work similar to the scheme used by TitanKey's system. In TitanKey's system, a "550" is issued to every message based on the assumption that spammers clean their lists because of SMTP errors. Then a challenge is issued to the receiver and the regular C/R process takes off. In your system, a "4xx" transient error code is issued. This is based on the assumption that: o Spammers won't retry after they get a deferral During the discussion about TitanKey's system, many people have stated that these basic assumptions have no valid data backing them up. Unless someone here is an "honest" spammer [sic], no one in the group can really provide any data as to what goes on behind the scenes on the spammer side. The advantage of your system is the same as TitanKey: the message is rejected before its received, thus reducing costs of dealing with storing the processing such message. However, whether the assumption here tends to be correct or not, is beginning to crop up all over, like you mentioned on your page. It would be interesting to see what spammers are doing but in any case this solution is probably a temporary fix. >Conclusion 1: aol, hotmail, and yahoo have successfully implemented >outbound antispam technology, ie. ways to ensure that only humans sign >up for their accounts, or limits on per-account outbound message volume. See my previous message some time ago about Hotmail's scripting abilities. Providers, especially the free ones, have a long way to go to reduce outbound message volume. >[..] > >Conclusion 2: Client IPs whose PTR do not match their sender domains are >more likely to be spam than not. That's why AOL rejects email from addresses without PTRs (see http://postmaster.info.aol.com/standards.html) >But that means a scheme like SPF/DMP/RMX should work nicely. It is very useful to see real-life data once in a while. Thanks. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 06:33:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27645 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DAXQs28590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:33:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DAXQm28587 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:33:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27633; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qlpz-0003Um-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:31:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qlpz-0003Uj-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:31:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CIY1a14811; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:34:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CIXZm14761 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:33:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22138 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QWr7-00057l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:31:25 -0400 Received: from 000-234-907.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.212] helo=68.27.156.212 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QWr4-00057W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:31:23 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612142712.00b53008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org, ASRG list From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <20030611025039.GA1809@m433> References: <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:32:47 -0400 At 10:50 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: >On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:47:00AM -0400, Eric Dean wrote > > I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing > > a new RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of > > it, then so be it. I'll proceed br producing a draft with real > > 2822-type headers. > > > > However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate > > in the meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > > 2822 headers > > Has any consideration been given to doing this at the SMTP stage >rather than as part of DATA: ? E.g. an EHLO which tries to negotiate a >set of features, including CHRE:. If the destination MTA says "Yes, I >do CHRE:", then do a "CHRE:" step just after the "RCPT:" step. >Advantages to this include... We had been discussing this, especially considering that TitanKey's system is starting to move in that direction. We want to define the headers approach first, followed by MIME headers and ESMTP. We had also been considering using the ESMTP extension used for DSNs (RFCs 3461-3464) and the Message Tracking Protocol that is being developed by an IETF WG. The consensus seems to be that SMTP approach is not right for everyone, the basic approach is using headers and MIME, with SMTP as an option for those who want it. > 1) Spam runs from compromised home machines (Jeem.pv and Guzu) with >forged "From:" addresses don't mailbomb innocent 3rd parties if rejected >at SMTP time. That was the advantage the Peter from TitanKey pointed out. His current system rejects email at SMTP level before the DATA command, and then sends a challenge. > 2) Yes, I realize that the ISP's MTA will have to keep state >information regarding the luser's preferences. However, it comes down >to either a) ISP's server doing it (maybe luser enters pre-emptive > whitelist/blocklist via web interface), or > b) luser administering it on his own MUA (Aunt Ethel or your > parents, yeah sure) Privacy issues are a big concern here. Keep in mind that in the USA, this information can be subpoened by many parties ranging from the RIAA seeking copyright pirates to the FBI via the FBIS. Some approaches here such as using checksums, one way functions, cryptography, etc. are needed. > 3) Clients can change MUA's, restore backed-up drives, format and >re-install, access email via web interface or laptop or handheld, etc, >etc, without worrying about replicating/propagating a small distributed >database over several client MUA's and devices. An XML structure to >download and upload settings would also be nice for synchronizing >multiple accounts at different ISPs. We cannot mandate the changes to the whole world. As I mentioned, SMTP approach would be optional. > 4) This would require changes in MTA rather than MUA. The top 10 or >twenty ISP's on the planet probably have 100,000,000 customers. Questions > a) is it going to be easier to implement changes at a couple of > dozen locations (plus multiple redundant MTAs) or a hundred > million locations (multiplied by the number of devices/MUA's the > clients use to access their email) ? > b) as per 2-b) do you expect Aunt Ethel to be competent to download > and install updated MUA's ? Hint, consider how many people use > the default browser/mailer/newsreader that came with their OS. > > 5) Doing C/R via embedded headers means having to accept the entire >email, because headers are part of DATA:. This uses additional >bandwidth, even if the destination MTA issues a 550. > > 6) Which is going to to impose more load on an MTA > a) handling an extra stage in the SMTP negotiation > b) accepting the entire email and parsing the entire body looking > for C/R headers > > 7) What about mailing lists (like this one for instance) that use >b0rken 2-bit defaults where hitting "r" to reply sends a reply not to >the list but to the individual sender ? How difficult is it to insert a >"Reply-To:" header? How are MUAs going to handle Envelope-From. Don't >talk to me about "Return-Path:". Many ISPs don't generate this on >incoming email, many MUAs don't use it, and your Aunt Ethel doesn't know >what it is, let alone the difference between "MAIL FROM:" and "From:". All these issues are good points, thats why we are looking at an optional SMTP protocol. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 06:45:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27866 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:45:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DAiYH29887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:44:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DAiYm29884 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:44:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27857; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qm0l-0003YN-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:42:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qm0k-0003YK-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:42:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D5r1a27781; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D5qfm27737 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:52:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09976 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QhSJ-0001Sr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:50:31 -0400 Received: from 000-258-487.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.249.170] helo=68.27.249.170 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QhSG-0001So-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:50:30 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613014338.00bb3e70@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well In-Reply-To: <200306130249.h5D2nWpl007608@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:48:56 -0400 At 08:49 PM 6/12/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) > > > ... > > Conclusion 1: aol, hotmail, and yahoo have successfully implemented > > outbound antispam technology, ie. ways to ensure that only humans sign > > up for their accounts, or limits on per-account outbound message volume. > >Success is certainly is fleeting. See > http://www.google.com/search?q=hotmail+dav > http://news.google.com/news?q=hotmail+dav > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141514 This also appeared on SlashDot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/06/08/0257203.shtml). >I've also seen recent reports from usually reliable sources that >Microsoft's account creation mechanism has been "scripted." By contrast Yahoo is employing a Turing test process to test sign ups. I wonder if Hotmail would use such process, would that reduce the problem? Probably not, as long as the WebDAV facility is turned on. >A summmary of all of that is that in recent weeks spammers have been >significant spam through Hotmail systems. > > >This goes to show that questions (not just statements) about whether >characteristics of spam (or spam defenses) occur some of the time or >most of the time should be view critically. Measurements of spam >can be useful for showing that a characteristic (practically?) always >or never occurs in spam or that a tactic of spammers or spam defenses >always or never works. Concluding much from a measurement that >says "X happens 90%" (or 9%) is often an error. > This is also true for the underlying assumption that is discussed on Wong's webpage regarding using transient failure codes (4xx) to stop spammers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 08:13:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29873 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DCD2t03993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DCD2m03990 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29864; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QnOO-0003y1-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:10:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QnOO-0003xy-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:10:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D3xOa19495; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:59:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5D3wtm19482 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:58:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07315 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QfgB-0000mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:56:43 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QfgB-0000mY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:56:43 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:45:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Peter Kay'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:45:53 -0400 We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the ASRG. It is based on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third parties." This means that the person submitting a proposal is responsible for stating any relevant IPR that he knows about even if he is not the holder of the rights. This does allow for other members to notify a contributor about relevant IPR after the initial submission. The contributor should then disclose this information in revisions of the contribution. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:42 PM > To: Peter Kay; Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > >IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think > its best to > >let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the > >unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just > say "these > >are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that > makes it clean > >and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. > > In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for > example - they > are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not > approached, and > since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must > approach them to > solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. > Otherwise, we > might be working on a standard only to find out that it is > patented. As for > the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of > anti-spam, I am > agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog > all patents in > the world. > > Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following > policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad > business methods patents > such as the MailBlocks patents. > 2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit > information > about it. > 3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of > the group as > they send them. > > P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us > know some > details on your IP. Feel free to use the template > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). > > Yakov > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 11:39:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10043 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DFdRw22092 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:39:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DFdRm22088 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:39:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10039; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qqc9-0006Fd-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:37:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qqc8-0006Fa-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:37:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DDF1a09478; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DDEYm09450 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:14:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02482 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QoLv-0004e8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:12:23 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QoLu-0004e5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:12:22 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5DDEUH0026721 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:14:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306131314.h5DDEUH0026721@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613014338.00bb3e70@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:14:30 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > By contrast Yahoo is employing a Turing test process to test sign ups. I > wonder if Hotmail would use such process, would that reduce the problem? > ... Obviously not. Computers will not be able to administer anything that might reasonably be called a Turing test until they can pass one. For the immediately foreseeable future, any text based test administered by computers will be as vulnerable to "scripting" as one based on pictures. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 12:58:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12532 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DGwRu03061 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:58:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DGwLm02947 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:58:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12305; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrqU-0006lZ-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrqU-0006lT-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:56:10 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DG21a23918; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:02:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DG1Jm23883 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:01:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10536 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QqxJ-0006NX-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:59:09 -0400 Received: from 000-258-487.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.249.170] helo=68.27.249.170 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QqxH-0006NU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:59:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030613120036.00b5c008@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , "'Paul Judge'" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:00:37 -0400 At 11:57 AM 6/13/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Paul Judge wrote: > > We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the ASRG. > > It is based on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. > > I hope everyone is aware that IPR policy has been and continues >to be quite a hotly discussed issue in the IETF IPR Working group. There >are currently a number of ID's which are very close to going to final >call that clarify the existing IETF policies. >[..] That working group is only working on IPR policy for IETF, not IRTF. Like Vern Paxson mentioned earlier, the IRTF does not have a former policy, it is decided on case-by-case basis. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 13:01:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12848 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DH1Ck05858 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:01:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DH1Bm05855 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:01:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12800; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrtF-0006qT-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrtE-0006qQ-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:59:00 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DFw1a23244; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:58:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DFvpm23207 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:57:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10454 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qqtx-0006Lt-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:55:41 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qqtx-0006Lq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:55:41 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr9.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id PGN82375; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-191-38.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.191.38]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIM67218; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Paul Judge'" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) Message-ID: <001001c331c4$875d1000$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5DFvqm23208 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:57:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Paul Judge wrote: > We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the ASRG. > It is based on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. I hope everyone is aware that IPR policy has been and continues to be quite a hotly discussed issue in the IETF IPR Working group. There are currently a number of ID's which are very close to going to final call that clarify the existing IETF policies. The IPR working group charter is at: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html The mailing list archives are at: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/maillist.html The documents currently being developed are: Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-09. txt IETF Rights in Contributions http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06. txt A Template for IETF Patent Disclosures and Licensing Declarations http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-template-03.txt bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 13:04:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13039 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DH4To08494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:04:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DH4Tm08491 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:04:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13016; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrwQ-0006ul-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:02:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrwQ-0006uh-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:02:18 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DFp1a22835; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DFo3m22773 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:50:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10325 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QqmP-0006J6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:47:53 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QqmO-0006J3-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:47:52 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABK79889; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-191-38.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.191.38]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIM65638; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Peter Kay'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <000f01c331c3$72610310$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612143707.00bb7c90@std5.imagineis.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5DFo3m22774 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:49:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Take MailBlocks, for example - they > are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They may be claiming patents on all C/R systems, but they can't claim all C/R related patents... MailBlocks may have basic patents that might claim some essential element of all C/R systems, but there are still many non-essential elements that their patents don't cover. For instance, one of at least four spam-related US Patent Applications that were filed just yesterday covers a number of elaborations on the C/R idea. The application I'm referring to is: 20030110400 "Method and system for blocking unwanted communications". This application goes beyond the base MailBlocks patents to claim: 1. The process of raising money by "spamming" people who use the C/R system. What they are claiming is the method of sending periodic advertisements to users of the system. Also, they claim the method of stopping such unsolicited advertisements under various conditions -- including payment by the user of a fee to turn off ads. 2. They claim a method of reducing the number of challenges which are issued. For instance, if you send messages to a number of users of C/R system and respond correctly to them, then the system will "trust" you in the future when you send mail to new people on the same system. 3. They claim a variety of methods and criteria for revoking a previously granted authorization based on observed behavior. For instance, even if you properly responded to challenges in the past, if you suddenly send a high volume of messages, your "authorization" will be revoked. Similarly, if several of the people who you authenticated with in the past put you on block lists, the system will no longer "trust" you and will issue new challenges. etc.... Patents like this are trying to claim a large number of non-essential elements which are likely to be implemented by those who implement the methods of the base patent. The holders of the base patent may find themselves backed into a corner... They may have a base patent, however, they can't implement a viable, "feature-rich" product without infringing on someone else's patent -- even though the other patents depend on theirs. For the application discussed above see: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u =%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=20030110400&FIE LD1=PGNR&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PG01 bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 13:20:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14054 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DHKBh17479 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:20:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DHKAm17472 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:20:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13964; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QsBc-0007Aj-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QsBb-0007Ag-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:17:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DGc2a28457; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:38:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DGbLm28089 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:37:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11417 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrWB-0006YS-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:35:11 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QrWA-0006Y8-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:35:10 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id ADF627100F0; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:38:14 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:41:42 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <54ae314c-1c86-4a34-a21c-8e5aba40cce7> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) Thread-Index: AcMxYBG5QH1RgdQ0TPiFs/d8Za/AGAAakYcg From: "Peter Kay" To: "Paul Judge" , "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5DGbMm28090 Subject: [Asrg] RE: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:36:54 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is good. Are you going to post it somewhere permanent? > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul.judge@ciphertrust.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:46 PM > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay; 'Asrg@ietf.org' > Subject: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) > > > > We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the > ASRG. It is based on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. > > > "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the > contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and > conditions > on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he > represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety > rights in the > contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in > addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual > submission, the > actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was > made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on > his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and > any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. > > The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of > any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the > contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the > contributor. The contributor does not represent that he > personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and > intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the > organization > he represents (if any) or third parties." > > This means that the person submitting a proposal is > responsible for stating any relevant IPR that he knows about > even if he is not the holder of the rights. This does allow > for other members to notify a contributor about relevant IPR > after the initial submission. The contributor should then > disclose this information in revisions of the contribution. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:42 PM > > To: Peter Kay; Asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > > > > At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > > > >IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think > > its best to > > >let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the > > >unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just > > say "these > > >are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that > > makes it clean > > >and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. > > > > In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for > > example - they > > are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not > > approached, and > > since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must > > approach them to > > solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. > > Otherwise, we > > might be working on a standard only to find out that it is > > patented. As for > > the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of > > anti-spam, I am > > agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog > > all patents in > > the world. > > > > Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following > > policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad > > business methods patents > > such as the MailBlocks patents. > > 2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit > > information > > about it. > > 3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of > > the group as > > they send them. > > > > P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us > > know some > > details on your IP. Feel free to use the template > > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). > > > > Yakov > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 14:42:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18005 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5DIfrD12579 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:41:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DIfrm12576 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:41:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17996; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QtSf-0000M0-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:39:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QtSf-0000Lx-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:39:41 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DIdfa09882; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:39:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DIcsm14970 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:38:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17758 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:38:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QtPm-0000Je-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:36:42 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QtPk-0000Iu-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:36:40 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AA752300F2; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:39:49 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:43:17 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <680cd5f8-791e-48d6-bafd-b7d5eefc6eb9> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C331DA.FC43EE83" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: appropriate to meet/present at ISPCON Fall? Thread-Index: AcMx216VB8K8LqPcTfeYfIzDty82bQ== From: "Peter Kay" To: Subject: [Asrg] appropriate to meet/present at ISPCON Fall? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:38:30 -1000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C331DA.FC43EE83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe this is Paul's call. Would it be a good idea to have a meeting at ISPCON Fall in Santa Clara? (www.ispcon.com) =20 =20 We're going to have a booth there and if Paul & group think its OK, I'd like to submit to the conference organizer that we get some conference time to get feedback from the ISPs that are fighting spam on the front line. I believe it would be a good win-win for all. We'll benefit from good F2F communication between ourselves and the feedback from ISPs will be rich. =20 =20 =20 =20 Peter Kay, President TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com =20 The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C331DA.FC43EE83 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I = believe this is=20 Paul's call.  Would it be a good idea to have a meeting at ISPCON = Fall in=20 Santa Clara?    (www.ispcon.com)  =
 
We're = going to have=20 a booth there and if Paul & group think its OK, I'd like to submit = to the=20 conference organizer that we get some conference time to get feedback = from the=20 ISPs that are fighting spam on the front line.  I believe it = would be=20 a good win-win for all.  We'll benefit from good F2F communication = between=20 ourselves and the feedback from ISPs will be rich.
 
 
 
 
Peter Kay,=20 President
TitanKey=20 Software
Web: = www.titankey.com
The = only technology=20 that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent
 
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C331DA.FC43EE83-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 20:29:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29689 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E0T9h05155 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:29:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E0T9m05151 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:29:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29640; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qysk-0002ea-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:26:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qysj-0002eX-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:26:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DMP1a27969; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:25:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DMOSm27922 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:24:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26343 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qww5-0001ms-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:22:17 -0400 Received: from mail1.asahi-net.or.jp ([202.224.39.197] helo=mail.asahi-net.or.jp) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qww4-0001mp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:22:16 -0400 Received: from nv6881 (j104186.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [61.213.104.186]) by mail.asahi-net.or.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id BCEDE783B for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:24:22 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <006301c331fa$86526e40$0301a8c0@nv6881> From: "Shannon Jacobs" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:24:15 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, not trying to sound bent out of shape and all that, and it's too bloody late now, but I just wanted to note that if I had realized that my email address was going to be reposted on a publicly accessible Web site and in a non-protected form, then I never would have dared to peek at this mailing list. Already mentioned that it's too late, but I'd still like to have my email address expunged. I had been wondering why the new spam was coming through this routing, and I don't want to waste more time dealing with it. And I am not amused to discover that ASRG was probably the source of the leak. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 21:57:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01915 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E1uuI10856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:56:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E1uum10853 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:56:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01906; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Fg-0003Bt-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:54:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Fg-0003Bp-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:54:44 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DK41a09792; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:04:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DK33m09629 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:03:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21408 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QujE-0000pt-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:00:52 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QujD-0000po-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:00:52 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2445775; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:03:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Paul Judge From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:59:45 -0400 At 11:45 PM -0400 6/12/03, Paul Judge wrote: >We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the ASRG. It is based >on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. > > >"By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the > contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions > on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he > represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the > contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in > addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the > actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was > made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on > his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and > any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. Could you possibly do another pass on the wording? Maybe I'm fuzzy today, but I couldn't make head or tail of that, even after reading your summary explanation. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 21:57:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01955 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E1v8m10877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:57:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E1v8m10874 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:57:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01911; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Fs-0003C0-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:54:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Fs-0003Bx-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:54:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DMJ2a27601; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:19:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DMIxm27572 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:18:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26194 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:18:55 -0400 (EDT) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qwql-0001lf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:16:47 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Qwql-0001lc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:16:47 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip2-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.2]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BF01136BA9 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:17:03 -0400 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <20030613221703.GB5964@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612143707.00bb7c90@std5.imagineis.com> <000f01c331c3$72610310$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000f01c331c3$72610310$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:17:03 -0400 On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:49:59AM -0400, Bob Wyman wrote > They may be claiming patents on all C/R systems, but they > can't claim all C/R related patents... MailBlocks may have basic > patents that might claim some essential element of all C/R systems, > but there are still many non-essential elements that their patents > don't cover. Just how broad are these C/R ("Challenge/Response") patents anyways? As a university student approximately 30 years ago, I spent a couple of summers in the Canadian Armed Forces Militia (i.e. reserves), as a summer job. One item we learned was... wait for it... challenge/response to let the "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys" out. I'm sure that any military college will have manuals detailing how it's done. This is an ancient military practice, and I don't see why computer software doing it versus a soldier on patrol doing it is sufficiently different to rule it out as "prior art". -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 23:10:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03711 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:10:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E3AUJ16049 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:10:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E3AIm16045 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:10:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03681; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1Oe-0003eY-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:08:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1Od-0003eV-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:08:03 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E1q2a10688; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:52:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E1phm10661 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:51:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01755 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Ad-0003AH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:49:31 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Ad-0003A2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:49:31 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:39:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:39:09 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:00 PM > To: Paul Judge > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: > Partial list) > > Could you possibly do another pass on the wording? Maybe I'm fuzzy > today, but I couldn't make head or tail of that, even after reading > your summary explanation. Is there a particular sentence that is unclear to you? The text is directly from RFC 2026. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 23:14:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03765 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E3DY816144 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:13:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E3DTm16141 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:13:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03757; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1Rj-0003f5-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:11:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1Ri-0003f2-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:11:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DLt2a24959; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:55:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DLt0m24939 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:55:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24496 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QwTY-0001bl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:52:48 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QwTX-0001be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:52:48 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5DLstaT006536 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:54:55 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15007; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:54:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Statistical Analysis shows SPF should work Pretty Well In-Reply-To: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:54:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To use an analogy, this approach still strikes me as trying to cut traffic down 25% on a four lane highway by blocking one lane with orange cones. The traffic will just flow around it. And "studies" showing that 25% of the traffic does in fact use the lane to be blocked aren't really persuasive, which is how these studies claiming that spammers frequently forge big domains into their heads strike me. It's not like spammers can't change their behavior, they often do, and this one isn't even hard to change. I think it's all somewhat similar to what John Gilmore is usually credited with saying; that censorship on the internet is viewed as damage and routed around. This isn't censorship (anyone who jumps on that gets my idiot award), but it's very similarly flawed, it's too easy to just route around this to get excited about it. On the other hand these schemes are possibly useful outside of the spam context as a weak form of authentication (hence, I think, outside of the scope of this research group.) For example, did this letter from my bank actually come from my bank? If it's just a notice that there's a special on car loans this month it's comforting to know it's probably really from my bank and clicking the link probably won't take me to a throbbing H0T L0LlTAZ!!! site. However, if it demands I respond with my account and PIN numbers I think it would be better to be suspicious even if it did appear to have come from my bank by this method of verification. So, a weak authentication scheme. But I think its potential effect on spam is minimal. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 23:28:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04174 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E3RdY16591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:27:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E3RTm16588 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:27:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04164; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1fH-0003lP-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:25:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1fH-0003lM-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:25:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E1q3a10696; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:52:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E1pqm10677 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:51:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01762 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Am-0003AM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:49:40 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R0Am-0003A3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:49:40 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:39:12 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:39:12 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:00 PM > To: Paul Judge > Cc: Asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: > Partial list) > > Could you possibly do another pass on the wording? Maybe I'm fuzzy > today, but I couldn't make head or tail of that, even after reading > your summary explanation. Is there a particular sentence that is unclear to you? The text is directly from RFC 2026. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 13 23:54:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04739 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E3rZc18244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:53:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E3rUm18237 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:53:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04700; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R24T-0003sC-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:51:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R24T-0003s8-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:51:17 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DLx1a25163; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DLwSm25134 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:58:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24565 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:58:24 -0400 (EDT) From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QwWu-0001cb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:56:16 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QwWu-0001cY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:56:16 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip2-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.2]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A671F36B9A for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:58:42 -0400 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header Message-ID: <20030613215842.GA5964@m433> References: <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030612142712.00b53008@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612142712.00b53008@std5.imagineis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:58:42 -0400 On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:32:47PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > At 10:50 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: > > 2) Yes, I realize that the ISP's MTA will have to keep state > >information regarding the luser's preferences. However, it comes down > >to either a) ISP's server doing it (maybe luser enters pre-emptive > > whitelist/blocklist via web interface), or > > b) luser administering it on his own MUA (Aunt Ethel or your > > parents, yeah sure) > > Privacy issues are a big concern here. Keep in mind that in the > USA, this information can be subpoened by many parties ranging from > the RIAA seeking copyright pirates to the FBI via the FBIS. Some > approaches here such as using checksums, one way functions, > cryptography, etc. are needed. Given those powers, I'd subpeona the ISP's logs instead, or at least a subset generated by grepping for the suspect's email address as the destination. Spam Rule #3, or some corollary thereof, applies to "military intelligence". They're stupid and incompetent, and think that the bad guys are too. Assuming that... a) I was a bad guy, and b) I'd do something as silly as sending instructions via email I could... - subscribe to this list - whitelist envelope-sender "asrg-admin@ietf.org" - tell my co-conspirator to forge "asrg-admin@ietf.org" as the envelope-sender when emailing me My whitelist would look very innocent, and "military intelligence" would still have to take a good look at the ISP's logs to figure our what was going on. Even simpler, we'd set up as spammers, and *NOT* use tight whitelists. Specially coded porno spams that open a dozen browser windows would also open one which had a porno gif with steganographic embedded encoding of instructions. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 14 01:04:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06594 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E53ha22467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:03:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E53hm22464 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:03:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA06574; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R3AR-0004FK-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:01:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R3AQ-0004FH-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:01:30 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E342a14864; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E33Im14846 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:03:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03524 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1Ht-0003b5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:01:05 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R1Hs-0003az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:01:04 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A0AE1C50106; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:04:14 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 03:07:42 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Thread-Index: AcMyG6SMRbdyvvOYQESwdko83etXiAABNidQ From: "Peter Kay" To: , "ASRG list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5E33Im14847 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:54 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Walt, I think those type of comments and questions about what is patentable or not are unproductive to this list, mainly because patents are a complex area of expertise. Unless you're a seasoned patent attorney, patent examiner, or one that has submitted several patents and gone through the examination process many times, all one can offer is something less than a "armchair quarterback" opinion that will typically lead to even more guessing and we'll end up getting excited over nothing. Asking technical people for their opinions on the patent process is like asking laypeople to comment on complex software architecture: you'll get comments that are completely out of scope and wildly incorrect. If there are any patent attorneys on this list, let them step forward. The rest of us should focus on doing what this group is chartered to do. See http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: waltdnes@waltdnes.org [mailto:waltdnes@waltdnes.org] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:17 PM > To: ASRG list > Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > Just how broad are these C/R ("Challenge/Response") patents > anyways? As a university student approximately 30 years ago, > I spent a couple of summers in the Canadian Armed Forces > Militia (i.e. reserves), as a summer job. One item we > learned was... wait for it... challenge/response to let the > "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys" out. I'm sure that > any military college will have manuals detailing how it's > done. This is an ancient military practice, and I don't see > why computer software doing it versus a soldier on patrol > doing it is sufficiently different to rule it out as "prior art". > > -- > Walter Dnes > Email users are divided into two classes; > 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking > 2) Those who wish they did > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 14 02:43:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20170 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E6hAx09455 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:43:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E6hAm09452 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:43:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA20155; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R4if-00052G-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:40:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R4id-00052D-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:40:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DKr1a17612; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5DKqVm17518 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:52:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22572 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QvV6-00017e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:50:20 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19QvV3-00017Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:50:18 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19QvWW-0007LT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:51:48 -0600 Message-ID: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 6.I Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:52:20 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a proposal to enhance email with the objective of eliminating spam. I was unaware of the ASRG until 6/11/03. I have tried to educate myself as to what has been presented so far in this discussion group, but there is so much and I can only read so fast. So with my apologies if these ideas have already been presented, I will simply post them and let things fall where they will. I am fed up with spam and I spent some time thinking of a solution. On May 23, 2003, I began to organized these ideas and write them up. I know there are many others also trying to solve this wretched issue and I am not so presumptuous as to assume that this is the only solution or the best solution, just a solution. If there are any good ideas contained herein, please make use of them. This was to be a proposal to eliminate spam in 6 months or less. Perhaps 6 months is too ambitious. I thought that it was possible until I started reading the postings at the ASRG yesterday. I was naive. This is a general description of how the email extensions would be used from a users perspective. These extensions would be relatively straight forward to implement and could be used across all platforms and by all ISPs. A non-proprietary solution is important for competition. This solution requires no legislation or government intervention. Existing anti-spam legislation could become irrelevant except where it deals with fraud. This solution does not address or care what spam is. It is up to the individual email recipient to decide what is and isn't spam. One man's drug is another man's poison. The incoming email server is only an agent of the recipient. No group or individual is censoring or filtering spam for another. These email extensions create an email system that is totally opt-in. When this solution is implemented, people can close and lock their mailboxes to email from everyone except those from whom they want to receive email. It will be like the lock on your front door. It will be like call blocking on your telephone. No more solicitors. Email can continue to be sent and received without using the proposed email extensions. If one wishes, they may continue to use email as they do now. But if they do so, they will not eliminate spam. It is my belief that people want spam free mailboxes and that they will use the extensions. CHANGES General Description: The email client extensions will work like this: 1. You can lock your mailbox with your email client. 2. Only senders that have a key to your mailbox can send an email into your mailbox. 3. You will create one or more keys for your mailbox and enter them into the email address book entries for the persons you are giving the keys to. A key can be any word, phrase or set of characters that you choose. You only have to create keys one time. You can change them any time you like. 4. You will give (send) the keys to those people, who you want to send email to you. You may give some people the same key and give others different keys. Senders are not only people, but lists and other entities. 5. You will be given (receive) keys from those people, who want to receive email from you. When you receive these keys, you will enter them into the email address book entries for the persons who are giving you the keys. 6. To send email to someone who has given (sent) you a key to their mailbox, you will include that key along with their email address in the composition dialog when you send the email. This key should be in your address book so that it can automatically be supplied by the email client when you enter the email address of the recipient either by typing it or by retrieving it from your address book. 7. When an email addressed to you is received by your email server, the server will compare the key that was sent in the message, with the key(s) for your mailbox. If there is a match, the email is placed into your mailbox. If not, the email will be bounced back to the sender. 8. If a key becomes exposed and compromised, you can change the key. The email client will send the new key to everyone who you specify or who was using the compromised key. If someone is giving out your key, you can find out who that is by giving everyone a different key. 9. If you don't want to receive any more email from a sender, delete the key that they are using. If it is shared by other senders, give them a new key. 10. If you want to send email to someone and you don't have a key for their mailbox, you can request a key. Selby Hatch selby_hatch@azza.com Fingerprint BD0A 9B79 1661 03DF D035 4578 07FF E619 E4C7 A610 Detailed information: The following describes what is required to extend the email system and what is required to send and receive email with the proposed changes. 1. The IETF will create a standard that everyone can, and must adhere to so that all email servers and clients can communicate with each other regardless of who the supplier is. 2. Suppliers of email clients will have to extend their email clients. This could take 2 weeks to two months depending on how well their software is constructed and how good their programmers are. Open source suppliers can probably do it in a month. Other suppliers will take longer. 3. Suppliers of email servers will have to extend their email servers. This could also take 2 weeks to two months depending on . . .. Open source suppliers can probably do it in a month. Others will suppliers will take longer. Server changes can coincide with client changes. 4. When the new extended email client is made available, you will download it and install it on your PC. 5. You will create 1 or more keys to your mail box. They can be a word or a phrase such as "sunset", "Wall Street", "pickles and quilts forever", "03/15/-0044", "Zzyzx", or "I love you". The keys don't have to be particularly secret, only secure enough to make it difficult for spammers to guess or get them. There will be no defaults supplied by the email client. These keys will be entered into the address book of your email client for the persons you have given them to. This is so that the email client can send the keys to your email server and so that you will know who has which keys in case you need to replace a key. Every address book entry can have two keys: (1) the key to your mailbox that you have sent to the addressee, and (2) the key to the mailbox of the addressee that they have sent to you. 6. Send a key to someone you want to receive email from. When you send a key, enter it into your email address book for the person you are sending it to. You will receive keys from those who want to receive email from you. When you receive a key, enter it into your email address book for the person who sent it to you. If your email client is user friendly, it will enter the key into your address book for you after asking for and receiving your permission. The email client may do this without permission if you have set that option. Each key is associated with an address book entry so that if you decide to change a key for that sender, your email client can send the new key to that person. 7. When your keys have been sent and your ISP notifies you that they have implemented the server changes that support locking your mailbox, you can have your email client lock your mailbox . . . . no more spam. Your email client will be able to query the server for a list of current keys. Your email client will be able to instruct the server to re-synchronize it's key list with the key list in your email client. 8. To send an email, you will do as you do now. If you have the recipient's mailbox key entered into your address book, your email client will supply the key when you enter the address. Your email client will embed the key in a message header when the message is sent. If not, you will enter the key into a field following the email address when you compose a message. 9. To receive email, you will make sure that those who send you email have a key to your mailbox. This includes bulk emailers like eBay, Yahoo, or Fox News as well as list servers, discussion groups, news groups, and message boards. You may want to use different keys for these types of senders. Keys to mailboxes are only one way. Senders who have a key can put mail in, but only you can read it or take it out. 10. If you want to send an email to someone for whose mail box you don't have a key, you will request a key by clicking on the "request key" entry on a drop down list in your email client. You will enter the email address and your email client will send a key request type of email to the email address you provided. You will also send a key to your mailbox. If one wants someone else's key, they must be willing to give one of their own keys. When the request is received, the recipient may send you a key. They may also reject your request or ignore it. If they do send a key, they can enter your email address and key into their address book, so that a new key can automatically be sent to you if they ever change the key. Any request for a key that has a subject, a message body, or other unnecessary header that could contain a solicitation, will be bounced by the receiving email server and will not placed into the mailbox. 11. It would be nice to allow the subject header in a request key email to be used for identification. But if this is allowed, it will be abused by spammers. It could contain a solicitation message or a web address, a phone number or some other such lure. The only information that will be available in a request key email is the requestor's email address and mailbox key. The recipient's mailbox key will only be sent to the requestor's email address. The only way to receive a mailbox key is for the requestor to provide a valid email address and mailbox key. Even the name portion of the sender's email address could prove to be a problem. It doesn't have to be a valid name and it could contain a lure or a solicitation message. Since it is not necessary for message transmission, perhaps it should be stripped off in the request for key process. The complete email address including the name could be obtained after the initial negotiation. 12. If you send an email to someone and you want a reply, you can include a key to your mailbox. When the recipient replies to your email, their email client will use the key that you sent, to reply to your message. 13. If a sender includes a key to their mailbox, your email client will insert the key into an address book entry if you direct it to. 14. Some sites require you to provide an email address if you register. If you do not want further correspondence beyond 1 day or 1 week, you can create a unique short lived key just for this purpose and use it in the registration. When you no longer wish any correspondence from this site, delete this mailbox key. The email client can make this easy to do. You may create an expiring key and specify how long to keep the key. When the expiration interval or expiration date is reached, the email client and the incoming email server will delete the key at the server. 15. If a sender requests a key to your mailbox and you can't identify the sender, you may want to create a short lived or expiring key. You can then send the key to the requestor and open a dialog. If you want to continue correspondence after the initial negotiation, then retain the key. Otherwise, delete it or let it expire. 16. Spam is dead. In the final analysis, if a sender has a key to your mailbox, they can send you an email. If they don't, the most they can do is request a key. You choose whether or not to give them a key and you choose to delete it if, and when, you want to end a correspondence. Technical Description Email Extensions for client and servers The email extensions for "received message control" are implemented using 4 new headers. The new headers are only effective if the email server supports the extension and the mailbox is user-locked. Non-extended email servers will ignore them. This provides backward compatibility. Encryption should not be employed in any extension. It will not be effective as a security measure and it will only create a false sense of security. The headers are described as follows: The To-Mailbox-Key header contains the key to the recipient's mailbox. When the message arrives, the To-Mailbox-key is compared to the list of keys kept by the incoming server for the addressed mailbox. The result of the comparison determines whether the message is stored into the mailbox or whether it is bounced. The From-Mailbox-Key header contains a current key to the sender's mailbox. It would be sent in response to a key request or if the sender wanted to include it for a reply. The New-Mailbox-Key header contains a new key to the sender's mailbox. It would be sent when the sender wants to give someone a new key to their mailbox. The From-Mailbox-Key could be used for verification by having the recipient email client match it to the sender's current key in the address book. An exception could be accepted or overridden by the user. The Request-Mailbox-Key header requests a key to the recipients mailbox. It would be accompanied by a From-Mailbox-Key header that provides the recipient with the requestor's key. Then when the New-Mailbox-Key header is returned, it will be accepted by the requestor's mail server. All messages with a Request-Mailbox-Key are stored into the recipient's mailbox. It is the only type that does not require a To-Mailbox-Key header. No message body may be present; the subject header must not be present or must be blank; the name portion of the to and from email addresses must not be present; no other headers that may contain embedded messages may be present. If so, the request is bounced. The email client and sending server need to take the case of multiple recipients into consideration. The email client will send email address/mailbox key pairs for each recipient. The outgoing email server must ensure that all To-Mailbox- Key headers, except the one for the current outgoing email, are stripped from the message and that only one To-Mailbox-Key header exists in the outgoing message. Forwarded messages should also be stripped of all mailbox keys by the email client, except for the mailbox key of the recipient. The headers must be handled by the email client and the incoming server in such a way that the use of keys is easy for the user. No header should be removed from an email, by an incoming email server, before the recipient receives it. The keys in the headers should be enclosed within a delimiter that is not part of the key so that spaces or other special characters are allowed within a key. The email client would edit keys for validity when they were created. The key length should be limited to some useable length. Perhaps 32, 50, 64 or 120 characters. The key list on the server for a particular mailbox should be a variable length list or file. It should be ordered such that a quick search could be applied to the key list during the comparison process. If the keys are stored as ordered fixed length records, a binary search could be applied. One may want to implement the list as a tree. The implementation is up the server supplier. The number of entries in the list should not be limited from a functional standpoint. From a service standpoint, an ISP may want to allow for a specified number of free keys at no charge and then charge for keys above that number. But with spam gone and no more filtering, they should be able to afford the extra space for key storage. A protocol needs to be defined so that an email client and the incoming email server, where the inbox resides, can communicate the mailbox state and the mailbox key list. Sender Authentication Sender authentication should be applied. A header called Sender-Auth or Sender-Verification will be inserted into the message by the sending server. It would consist of a delimited string containing the IP address, server identification, and a timestamp. The string would be preceded by the result of a function that was applied to that string as it was sent by the originating server. A delimiter would separate the function result from the string. The function would be implemented by the server administrator and would be unique for that server or set of servers. A protocol would be created such that a receiving server could request that the originating server verify that the Sender-Auth header is consistent. The originating server would be required to apply it's function to the string as sent by the requesting server and then return the result. The receiving server would compare the returned function result with the result in the Sender-Auth header and if they match, the sending server is authentic. Another authentication method would be for the originating server to send a short public encryption key in the result field. When the receiving server received the message, it would encrypt a short message and request the sending server to authenticate by decrypting the message with it's private key and sending the message back. If the returned message matched the encrypted message, the sending server is authentic. An example of a function would be an 8 digit check sum of the string that is then exclusive ored with an 8 digit number that is unique at that time, for that server or set of servers. This would generate an 8 digit result. Part of the function should be time based such that the function would actually change in some externally unpredictable manner over a determined interval of an day, hour or minute. The 8 digit number that is the target of the exclusive or, could be the changing value. It could be retrieved from a list of numbers in a file or it could be generated based on a timestamp. The string contains the timestamp of when the function was originally applied to the string. This is an example of one type of function. The actual set of usable functions is extremely large. The 8 digit result length is only an example. Result lengths would be determined by the sending server and could be from 1 to some arbitrary length, perhaps 20, 25, 32 or some other common standard currently in use. The user should be able to turn this authentication on or off for their mailbox. If authentication-required is set by the user, and the authentication process fails, the message would be bounced. An ISP may elect to turn this on for all emails. One may argue that this would add to internet traffic. Perhaps a little, but the messages would be quite short and the fact that they were present and in use would in the long run cut down on internet traffic that is illegitimate. Illegitimate internet traffic is traffic that is meant to deceive a recipient. It would certainly reduce illegitimate internet traffic at a server that had authentication-required set for incoming messages. The message could be bounced at any time after a Sender-Auth header was determined not to be authentic. Another consideration is that many incoming email servers are currently querying other servers on the internet for each email to determine if it is spam. This traffic would no longer be necessary since filters would no longer be required. Questions and Answers Will spammers continue to use invalid server and email addresses? No. Noone can send a message to another email address and expect it be received into the mailbox without including a valid mailbox key. No one can request a valid key without sending a valid email address and a key to their mailbox. No messages will be accepted by a receiving email server unless the originating server can be authenticated. How does this differ from white lists? White lists are an attempt by an email client or receiving server to match incoming email to a list of acceptable senders through the use of a filter. This allows forged headers to make the message look like an acceptable email on a white list. Mailbox keys put the burden of being an accepted email on the sender. From the recipients point of view, it is passive in the same sense as an email address. Since everyone gets email from different sources, white lists are maintained in the email client as filters. Most users don't know how to use filters in their email clients, so white lists are used by very few people. With mailbox keys, the headers for the keys could still be "forged", but the chances of generating a correct key are very, very small. If this happens, the user can simply change the key. Mailbox keys move the process of validating an email from the email client out to the incoming server where the message is received. Unacceptable messages are immediately bounced. Will filtering still be necessary? No filtering will not be necessary because a message from a sender is only accepted if it matches a recipient's mailbox key. Filtering creates some false positives email that is not spam, but that the filter detects as spam. Filtering also allows some spam through because spam can be made to look to a filter, like it is not spam. How easy will it be to use? As easy or as hard as the email client supplier makes it. Most processes should be automated, but a user should be able to alter the behavior of the client to some extent, to suit his needs. Examples are: (1) Manually or automatically creating address book entries for incoming email and storing the senders key. (2) User selectable detection of new email senders and the creation of new entries for them in the address book. (5) Provide assistance in responding to a request key email. (4) Manually or automatically sending an email to everyone in the address book for whom the user wants to give a new key to the mailbox. Comments and Questions from: - - - - - The forum charged with discussing spam in the vicinity of the IETF is the Antispam Research Group - asrg@ietf.org - it's an open mailing list. Query: Since your proposal requires changing all email clients in the world and managing a key ring for all your friends, how is it easier to implement than globally starting to use PGP? I suppose that it is somewhat of a key ring, but there is no encryption taking place. The key is only verified by the incoming mail server. The key is really analogous to a key to a lock rather than a key to a cipher. How do you handle mailing lists? Mailing lists are handled the same as any outbound email. The key to the recipient's mailbox must be sent with the message in a header. When one signs up for a list, he would supply a key or he would send an email to the list server to update the key to his mailbox. The list server has to be able to automatically update keys for an email address when the list member wants to send a new key. How the keys are sent back and forth to be updated is in the technical information. Does the sender have to have the key for the list, and the list the keys for all the recipients? That means that all the list management software in the world is also on the critical update path. I understand the issue. Yes, if the incoming mailbox for the list is locked, the sender has to have a key to the list. Only the list server has the keys of all of the members. When it receives a message, it will have to insert the key for each member as it sends the message to each individual member. Yes, unfortunately, list servers are on the critical update path. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 14 03:01:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20596 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 03:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5E70gJ10196 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 03:00:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E70fm10193 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 03:00:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20583; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 03:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R4zd-00057r-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:58:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R4zc-00057o-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:58:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E602a26481; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:00:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5E5x1m26438 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07521 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R41w-0004VR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:56:48 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19R41w-0004VO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:56:48 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 59355DE44; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:58:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: Barry Shein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:58:58 -0400 On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: | | It's not like spammers can't change their behavior, they often do, and | this one isn't even hard to change. I agree; we must play good chess. If SPF/DMP/RMX/... goes in, what do you think the spammers will do next? In other news, is anyone else getting list messages delivered late? I'm seeing delays of up to a few hours. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 14 18:26:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06744 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5EMPf131714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:25:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5EMPfm31711 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:25:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06740; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RJQl-0000WW-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:23:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RJQk-0000WT-00; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:23:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5EKA1a23572; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:10:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5EK9Rm23552 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:09:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03420 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:09:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RHIx-0007fV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:07:15 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RHIw-0007fR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:07:14 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABL91130; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-191-38.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.191.38]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIO50010; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Selby Hatch'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6.I Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key Message-ID: <000801c332b0$d218a810$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5EK9Rm23553 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:09:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Selby Hatch wrote: > 2. Only senders that have a key to your mailbox can send > an email into your mailbox. > 3. You will create one or more keys for your mailbox and > enter them into the email address book entries for the > persons you are giving the keys to. The system you have described is very similar to ones that have been described and implemented in the past. Personally, I agree with you that this particular method of fighting spam is likely to form part of a very effective anti-spam system. The most interesting feature of such a system is that it has immediate benefit to someone who adopts it and it can be adopted by individuals rather than requiring support from ISPs, network maintainers, etc. For some background on other similar proposals, check out: A number of patents are relevant to this type of system: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5930479 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6356935 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6085321 The "Tagged Message Delivery Agent" which incorporates a similar system of "tagged addresses" as one of its features: http://www.tmda.net/ TMDA was inspired by Thomas Erskine's 1997 implementation of TMS http://www.deepeddy.com/tms.html A Forbes magazine article that suggests the use of passwords in subject lines. http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0623/136.html See the "Virtual Private Email Addresses" implemented by TitanKey http://www.titankey.com/ Hadmut Danisch's proposal for "Mail Cookies" https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00054. html A variety of notes in the ASRG archives that I wrote starting with the one below in March... https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00041. html Note: It should be realized of course, that there is a long history of passing passwords in the headers or body of email messages in order to authenticate access to various resources -- folk were doing this long before any of the systems above were patented or otherwise described. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 00:18:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10876 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F4Hdm18230 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:17:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F4HTm18227 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:17:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10870; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ROvC-0001Wp-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:15:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ROvC-0001Wl-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:15:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F2s1a13078; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:54:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F2rDm13040 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:53:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10048 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNbf-0001HF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:50:59 -0400 Received: from 000-234-731.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.36] helo=68.27.156.36) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNbc-0001H6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:50:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614225218.00ba64c0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Meng Weng Wong From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:52:50 -0400 At 01:58 AM 6/14/2003 -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: >In other news, is anyone else getting list messages delivered late? >I'm seeing delays of up to a few hours. I have been having delays also for a while. Perhaps contacting the IETF might help. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 00:42:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11104 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:42:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F4gAY19633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:42:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F4gAm19630 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:42:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11077; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPJ7-0001Z1-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:39:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPJ6-0001Yy-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:39:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F1F2a08336; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:15:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F1Emm08318 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:14:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08961 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RM4R-00011K-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:12:35 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RM4P-00011C-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:12:33 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2448442; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:14:42 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: Paul Judge From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list ) Cc: Paul Judge , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:59:08 -0400 At 9:39 PM -0400 6/13/03, Paul Judge wrote: >Is there a particular sentence that is unclear to you? The text is directly >from RFC 2026. >>"By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the >> contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions >> on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he >> represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the >> contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in >> addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the >> actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was >> made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on >> his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and >> any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. Well, part of the problem is that there are only two sentences, but there are about half a dozen sub clauses. I think I understand the first sentence, but it raises more issues than it helps. What does "represents" mean? Does that mean I need to stick a clause in every suggestion I make, stating that this is not an official statement from my organization? But anyway, the first sentence simply seems to say that by the acting of contributing a (something, not clear what) I'm agreeing to the following terms, and I'm agreeing to them for everyone who I might possibly represent. The more I think about that, the more I find it unacceptable. Agreement should be explicit, not implicit. (Sounds like we're defining spam here :-). The second sentence is the one that lost me. After reading it several times I think it means. The submitter promises that everyone with ownership of the contribution has been aware of, and agrees to, these terms. Now that I understand that, I don't find it acceptable either. You need to define "contribution". Are we talking a formal contribution made to the ASRG as in "here is my document, documenting what I think we ought to do"? Or are we talking about the bunch of us bouncing around ideas and making suggestions. Because if it's the latter, then I think there are a number of people on this list who are going to have to pull out. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 01:09:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11489 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F592L21182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:09:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F592m21179 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:09:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11485; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPj6-0001fr-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:06:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPj6-0001fo-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:06:48 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F3KMa14640; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:20:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F3J6m14587 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:19:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10294 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:19:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RO0g-0001LP-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:16:50 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RO0g-0001LM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:16:50 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:18:02 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:18:22 -0400 Message-ID: <01C332CB.3F7862F0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Art Pollard'" , Rob Cameron , "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:18:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather > than the FROM address. A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a 'senders' private key? > Thus it would be quite possible for people to have > multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail > address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if > they switched ISPs. Same private key? 8<...>8 > ...When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a > particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address. Caching of the public key? -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 01:23:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11695 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F5MZW21514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:22:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F5MYm21511 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:22:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11691; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPwD-0001ie-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:20:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPwC-0001ib-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:20:20 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F35La13362; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:05:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F34Qm13325 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:04:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10188 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNmW-0001JF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:02:12 -0400 Received: from 000-234-731.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.36] helo=68.27.156.36) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNmT-0001JC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:02:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614230227.00b347f0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org, ASRG list From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: <20030613221703.GB5964@m433> References: <000f01c331c3$72610310$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> <5.2.0.9.2.20030612143707.00bb7c90@std5.imagineis.com> <000f01c331c3$72610310$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:04:03 -0400 At 06:17 PM 6/13/2003 -0400, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: >On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:49:59AM -0400, Bob Wyman wrote > > > They may be claiming patents on all C/R systems, but they > > can't claim all C/R related patents... MailBlocks may have basic > > patents that might claim some essential element of all C/R systems, > > but there are still many non-essential elements that their patents > > don't cover. > > Just how broad are these C/R ("Challenge/Response") patents anyways? >As a university student approximately 30 years ago, I spent a couple of >summers in the Canadian Armed Forces Militia (i.e. reserves), as a >summer job. One item we learned was... wait for it... >challenge/response to let the "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys" >out. I'm sure that any military college will have manuals detailing >how it's done. This is an ancient military practice, and I don't see >why computer software doing it versus a soldier on patrol doing it is >sufficiently different to rule it out as "prior art". Judge for yourself at the USPTO (http://www.uspto.gov) or take a look at these links (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/cobb_patent.pdf and http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/heiner_patent.pdf). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 01:31:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11766 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F5V9S21696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:31:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F5V9m21693 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:31:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11761; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RQ4V-0001jU-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:28:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RQ4V-0001jR-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:28:55 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F3BOa14473; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:11:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F3Arm14458 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:10:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10251 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNsf-0001L9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:08:33 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNsf-0001L5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:08:33 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:08:10 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:08:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01C332C9.DF290A90.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "asrg@ietf.org" , Peter Kay Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:08:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, June 09, 2003 2:39 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: 8<...>8 > HOWEVER, the same section states: > > "Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM command > MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>"." A proper intepretation of that statement requires its full context. The intent is to prevent message looping. As such the CRI or other systems SHOULD ensure that specfied addresses do not violate that tenet. The envelope sender address of the DSN SHOULD be chosen to ensure that no delivery status reports will be issued in response to the DSN itself, and MUST be chosen so that DSNs will not generate mail loops. Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>". > That means that C/R systems such as yours MUST support the empty return > path (<>). No it does not, IMO, given the full context of the requirement. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 01:40:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11852 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F5dcv22704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:39:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F5dcm22701 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:39:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11845; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RQCi-0001kE-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:37:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RQCh-0001kB-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:37:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F331a13300; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:03:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F32am13290 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:02:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10171 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNkj-0001J3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:00:21 -0400 Received: from 000-234-731.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.36] helo=68.27.156.36) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNkh-0001J0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:00:20 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614225651.00bb7ff8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org, ASRG list From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <20030613215842.GA5964@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030612142712.00b53008@std5.imagineis.com> <01C32D56.08AC8FF0.eric@infobro.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030612142712.00b53008@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:02:12 -0400 At 05:58 PM 6/13/2003 -0400, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: >On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:32:47PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > At 10:50 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > > 2) Yes, I realize that the ISP's MTA will have to keep state > > >information regarding the luser's preferences. However, it comes down > > >to either a) ISP's server doing it (maybe luser enters pre-emptive > > > whitelist/blocklist via web interface), or > > > b) luser administering it on his own MUA (Aunt Ethel or your > > > parents, yeah sure) > > > > Privacy issues are a big concern here. Keep in mind that in the > > USA, this information can be subpoened by many parties ranging from > > the RIAA seeking copyright pirates to the FBI via the FBIS. Some > > approaches here such as using checksums, one way functions, > > cryptography, etc. are needed. > > Given those powers, I'd subpeona the ISP's logs instead, or at least a >subset generated by grepping for the suspect's email address as the >destination. [..] ISP logs are not around for very long, whitelists for C/R systems are. Plus, ISP logs might be congregated for thousands and thousands of customers, while email preferences are unique per user and more easily identifiable. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 02:27:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24425 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F6QiL03839 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:26:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F6Qhm03836 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:26:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24413; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RQwG-0001ts-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:24:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RQwG-0001tp-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:24:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F2p1a13006; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F2oYm12985 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:50:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10010 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNZ6-0001GR-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:48:20 -0400 Received: from 000-234-731.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.36] helo=68.27.156.36) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNZ3-0001GN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:48:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614225005.00bba8a0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Shannon Jacobs" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:50:06 -0400 At 07:24 AM 6/14/2003 +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote: >Hey, not trying to sound bent out of shape and all that, and it's too bloody >late now, but I just wanted to note that if I had realized that my email >address was going to be reposted on a publicly accessible Web site and in a >non-protected form, then I never would have dared to peek at this mailing >list. > >Already mentioned that it's too late, but I'd still like to have my email >address expunged. I had been wondering why the new spam was coming through >this routing, and I don't want to waste more time dealing with it. And I am >not amused to discover that ASRG was probably the source of the leak. I have been getting some spam at this email address as well since participating in the group. However, this address was exposed in at least one other place, so I don't know for sure. The program used for archiving the lists is MHonArc, which has an anti-spam module (see http://www.mhonarc.org/MHonArc/doc/resources/spammode.html). Perhaps the administrators can turn it on in order to make sure that addresses are not being harvested. The IETF mail administrator can be reached at mailadm@ietf.org (from https://www1.ietf.org/maillist.html) and the person that handles our list is Jakob Munoz who can be reached at jmunoz@ietf.org (from https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg). GNU MailMan, which handles the actual mailing list, might have anti-spam features as well. Alas, for all we know that could be spammers on the list as well who want revenge, also I highly doubt it. On the last note, consider this little gem from the IETF's spam control policy page (https://www1.ietf.org/spamcontrol.html): "The Anti-Spam Research Group of the IRTF is ignored by all policies to prevent interruption of service." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 02:56:14 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24836 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F6tkP05937 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:55:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F6tkm05934 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:55:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA24831; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRON-0002Fp-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:53:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RROM-0002Fm-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:53:30 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F311a13266; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F30km13233 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:00:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10149 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNix-0001Io-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:58:31 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNix-0001IX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:58:31 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:58:53 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:59:12 -0400 Message-ID: <01C332C8.927DECC0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Eric Dean , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:58:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Currently this is the 'requirement' - it is being slightly modified per Paul Judge's inputs. 2.9 Goal Oriented Solution The proposal SHOULD provide a carefully drafted scope of its goals and its effectiveness at addressing those goals. Systems SHOULD consider how they interoperate with other [anti-spam] systems. -e On Monday, June 09, 2003 12:22 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > At 05:09 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > >Maybe I'm a minimalist, but I'm not sure where 998 characters is a limit for > >CRI. Hell, I'm not even concerned about the 78 characters that are > >"preferred". > > > >I would prefer not including hash cash, digital sigs, etc within a CRI > >model. I'd prefer to keep it simple. that's not to say that these > >additional capabilities are not warranted nor provide additional value. In > >fact, they may be of such value that they can stand alone. > > Should we be building in an extension mechanism that would allow for that? > SMTP for example is a simple protocol, but has an extension mechanism which > allows for a lot more complex stuff. > > >Regarding SMTP mods..I think we should reserve that concept and develop it > >within a subsequent version...but rather focus and define what's currently > >at hand. There are a few dozen C/R system that could benefit from an > >interworking model > > Agreed. > > > > Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like to > > > bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out > > > before, in > > > my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME > > > headers, > > > with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon stated, > > > MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data > > > (larger than > > > the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. > > > Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate chains and > > > replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple > > > recipients. > > > Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful > > > in certain > > > cases. > > > > > > Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as > > > extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own > > > features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with > > > proposing a new > > > >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, > > > then so be it. > > > >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > > > > > > > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in > > > >the > > > >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > > > 2822 headers > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > > > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > > > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > > > > isn't an RFC > > > > > > > > 2822 > > > > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > > > > introduction > > > > > > >of an > > > > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as > > > effective?' > > > > > > >[..] > > > > > > > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until > > > the standard > > > > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > > > > > is approved > > > > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > > > similar to the > > > > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > > > indicate gzip > > > > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > > > > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > > > > interpose is that > > > > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > > > > the proposal is > > > > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > > > > > > > -e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 03:14:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25185 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F7Do507287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:13:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F7Dom07284 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:13:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25181; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRft-0002Jm-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:11:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRft-0002Jj-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:11:37 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F39Na14428; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:09:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F376m13663 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:07:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10243 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNp2-0001Kv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:04:48 -0400 Received: from 000-234-731.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.156.36] helo=68.27.156.36) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RNoy-0001Ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:04:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614230550.00bb7a38@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric D. Williams" , Eric Dean , "asrg@ietf.org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <01C332C8.927DECC0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:06:40 -0400 Can you be more specific as to which part of the CRI proposal you were referring to? At 10:58 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >Currently this is the 'requirement' - it is being slightly modified per Paul >Judge's inputs. > >2.9 Goal Oriented Solution > > The proposal SHOULD provide a carefully drafted scope of its > goals and its effectiveness at addressing those goals. Systems > SHOULD consider how they interoperate with other [anti-spam] systems. > >-e > >On Monday, June 09, 2003 12:22 PM, Yakov Shafranovich >[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > At 05:09 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > >Maybe I'm a minimalist, but I'm not sure where 998 characters is a > limit for > > >CRI. Hell, I'm not even concerned about the 78 characters that are > > >"preferred". > > > > > >I would prefer not including hash cash, digital sigs, etc within a CRI > > >model. I'd prefer to keep it simple. that's not to say that these > > >additional capabilities are not warranted nor provide additional > value. In > > >fact, they may be of such value that they can stand alone. > > > > Should we be building in an extension mechanism that would allow for that? > > SMTP for example is a simple protocol, but has an extension mechanism which > > allows for a lot more complex stuff. > > > > >Regarding SMTP mods..I think we should reserve that concept and develop it > > >within a subsequent version...but rather focus and define what's currently > > >at hand. There are a few dozen C/R system that could benefit from an > > >interworking model > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like to > > > > bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out > > > > before, in > > > > my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME > > > > headers, > > > > with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon > stated, > > > > MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data > > > > (larger than > > > > the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. > > > > Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate > chains and > > > > replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple > > > > recipients. > > > > Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful > > > > in certain > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as > > > > extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own > > > > features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. > > > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > > > >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with > > > > proposing a new > > > > >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, > > > > then so be it. > > > > >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > > > > > > > > > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in > > > > >the > > > > >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > > > > 2822 headers > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > > > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > > > > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > > > > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > > > > > isn't an RFC > > > > > > > > > 2822 > > > > > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > > > > > introduction > > > > > > > >of an > > > > > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as > > > > effective?' > > > > > > > >[..] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until > > > > the standard > > > > > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > > > > > > is approved > > > > > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > > > > similar to the > > > > > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > > > > indicate gzip > > > > > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > > > > > interpose is that > > > > > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > > > > > the proposal is > > > > > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > > > > > > > > > -e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Asrg mailing list > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 03:58:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25701 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F7vhE09079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:57:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F7vgm09076 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:57:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25693; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSML-0002Q6-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:55:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSMK-0002Q3-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:55:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F3qGa16326; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:52:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F3pYm16310 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:51:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10649 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ROW8-0001PS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:49:20 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ROW7-0001PD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:49:19 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:48:38 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:48:58 -0400 Message-ID: <01C332CF.85C44F40.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Eric Dean , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:48:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This message intends to address the issue raised concerning this statement: 'Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc.' This is a SHOULD part of the broader requirement. Sorry if that was unclear. I am getting back up to speed after a few days, only this message left to go ;-). -e On Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:07 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > Can you be more specific as to which part of the CRI proposal you were > referring to? > > At 10:58 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > >Currently this is the 'requirement' - it is being slightly modified per Paul > >Judge's inputs. > > > >2.9 Goal Oriented Solution > > > > The proposal SHOULD provide a carefully drafted scope of its > > goals and its effectiveness at addressing those goals. Systems > > SHOULD consider how they interoperate with other [anti-spam] systems. > > > >-e > > > >On Monday, June 09, 2003 12:22 PM, Yakov Shafranovich > >[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > At 05:09 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Maybe I'm a minimalist, but I'm not sure where 998 characters is a > > limit for > > > >CRI. Hell, I'm not even concerned about the 78 characters that are > > > >"preferred". > > > > > > > >I would prefer not including hash cash, digital sigs, etc within a CRI > > > >model. I'd prefer to keep it simple. that's not to say that these > > > >additional capabilities are not warranted nor provide additional > > value. In > > > >fact, they may be of such value that they can stand alone. > > > > > > Should we be building in an extension mechanism that would allow for that? > > > > > > SMTP for example is a simple protocol, but has an extension mechanism > > > which > > > allows for a lot more complex stuff. > > > > > > >Regarding SMTP mods..I think we should reserve that concept and develop > > > >it > > > >within a subsequent version...but rather focus and define what's > > > >currently > > > >at hand. There are a few dozen C/R system that could benefit from an > > > >interworking model > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like > > > > > to > > > > > bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out > > > > > before, in > > > > > my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME > > > > > headers, > > > > > with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon > > stated, > > > > > MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data > > > > > (larger than > > > > > the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be transferred. > > > > > Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate > > chains and > > > > > replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple > > > > > recipients. > > > > > Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful > > > > > in certain > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > > > Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol > > > > > as > > > > > extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their > > > > > own > > > > > features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with > > > > > proposing a new > > > > > >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, > > > > > then so be it. > > > > > >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > > > > > > > > > > > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate > > > > > >in > > > > > >the > > > > > >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > > > > > 2822 headers > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > > > > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > > > > > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > > > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > > > > > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > > > > > > isn't an RFC > > > > > > > > > > 2822 > > > > > > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > > > > > > introduction > > > > > > > > >of an > > > > > > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as > > > > > effective?' > > > > > > > > >[..] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until > > > > > the standard > > > > > > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard > > > > > > > is approved > > > > > > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > > > > > similar to the > > > > > > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > > > > > indicate gzip > > > > > > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > > > > > > interpose is that > > > > > > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > > > > > > the proposal is > > > > > > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Asrg mailing list > > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 04:07:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25861 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F86eK09749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:06:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F86em09746 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:06:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25849; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSV0-0002TW-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:04:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSV0-0002TT-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:04:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F4e2a19568; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:40:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F4dpm19535 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:39:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11054 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPGr-0001Ye-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:37:37 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RPGq-0001Yb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:37:36 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2448775; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:39:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com> References: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com> To: Selby Hatch From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6.I Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:39:06 -0400 At 2:52 PM -0600 6/13/03, Selby Hatch wrote: >This was to be a proposal to eliminate spam in 6 months or less. >Perhaps 6 months is too ambitious. I thought that it was possible >until I started reading the postings at the ASRG yesterday. I was >naive. Well, there's nothing wrong with the idea in concept. The issues revolve around adoption, social issues, off-line addresses and the like. >It is my belief that people want spam free mailboxes and that they >will use the extensions. There is probably a class of users who only want to receive email from people with whom they have had prior communication. I don't know anyone in that class--even the folks who get email to talk to their family usually want long lost friends to be able to find them. That means that you need to check unauthorized messages to see if there's anything there you didn't expect. If you have to do that, the spammers will probably be happy to keep sending you spam. >dialog when you send the email. This key should be in your address >book so that it can automatically be supplied by the email client >when you enter the email address of the recipient either by typing >it or by retrieving it from your address book. That's another thing that a lot of people assume. Maybe I'm weird, but I have very, very few addresses in my address book. Mainly people whom I communicate with on a daily basis and would like to have their address auto-expanded. Does everyone really use address books? >2. Suppliers of email clients will have to extend their email >clients. This could take 2 weeks to two months depending on how well >their software is constructed and how good their programmers are. >Open source suppliers can probably do it in a month. Other suppliers >will take longer. Presumably because they have schedules and like to test their software first :-). But seriously. If you're making a proposal, don't piss off the adopters in it. There's no need for remarks like that. >4. When the new extended email client is made available, you will >download it and install it on your PC. That's an adoption problem. First of all, it's not that simple. Who's going to update the email program on my Audrey? Secondly, if people just casually did that when something new was available we wouldn't have nearly the virus problems we do now. Large companies are very slow to make changes without first validating them. Individuals at home are are also slow to make changes. There's a lot of old software out there, despite the fact that there are critical fixes in the new software. And sometimes there are good reasons not to upgrade. None of which is to take away from the idea. Just realize that "six months" may look a lot more like "six years". And remember too, the critical problem with this. You can't automatically toss the spam until all of your correspondents are using the system. So it's not good enough that you upgrade--you've got to get Aunt Martha to upgrade too. >These keys will be entered into the address book of your email >client for the persons you have given them to. This is so that the >email client can send the keys to your email server and so that you >will know who has which keys in case you need to replace a key. >Every address book entry can have two keys: (1) the key to your >mailbox that you have sent to the addressee, and (2) the key to the >mailbox of the addressee that they have sent to you. That's actually a huge infrastructure change. Corporate and shared address books need to be extended. Data formats need to be changed. Not as trivial as it sounds at first blush. Additionally, you've implied that the server is going to store my keys as well. Currently most mail servers store no information at all about users other than a password (which they may well get from the OS). That needs to be stored as well. And how is going to be secured? The mail server needs access to it on it's own, so even if it's encrypted, the mail server has the password. Break into a mail server and you've just gained access to everyone's email keys. >7. When your keys have been sent and your ISP notifies you that they >have implemented the server changes that support locking your >mailbox, you can have your email client lock your mailbox . . . . no >more spam. Your email client Nope. That state is not reached until everyone you know is using the system too. >be sent to you if they ever change the key. Any request for a key >that has a subject, a message body, or other unnecessary header that >could contain a solicitation, will be bounced by the receiving email >server and will not placed into the mailbox. What is considered sufficient information then? If I get email from JSmith@yahoo.com, and he's not allowed to put in a subject or a body, then how am I supposed to know that I want to talk to him? If he's a spammer, I don't. If he saw one of my postings on ASRG and has a comment, then I do. This is a major flaw in this system. Any system that allows two strangers to exchange enough information that they can determine that they wish to talk, is also going to allow enough information for a spammer. I don't believe there is any way around that. >address could prove to be a problem. It doesn't have to be a valid >name and it could contain a lure or a solicitation message. Since it >is not necessary for message transmission, perhaps it should be >stripped off in the request for key process. The complete email >address including the name could be obtained after the initial >negotiation. You do that, and it gets even worse. How am I to know that xx233w221y@aol.com is Aunt Sally's new email address and not a spammer? >14. Some sites require you to provide an email address if you >register. If you do not want further correspondence beyond 1 day or >1 week, you can create a unique short lived key just for this >purpose and use it in the registration. So. Every single web form in the world needs to add a new field and their database needs to be changed? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 04:08:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25895 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:08:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F87kg10456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:07:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F87jm10445 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:07:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25888; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:07:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSW3-0002Tm-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:05:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSW3-0002Tj-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:05:31 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F731a06108; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:03:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F72Gm06093 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:02:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24895 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:01:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRUR-0002G5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:59:47 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRUL-0002G0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:59:41 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip2-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.2]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B7A8036974 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:53:40 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6.I Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key Message-ID: <20030615025340.A14860@m433> References: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com>; from selby_hatch@azza.com on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:53:40 -0400 On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0600, Selby Hatch wrote > Fingerprint > BD0A 9B79 1661 03DF D035 4578 07FF E619 E4C7 A610 Are you talking about PGP/GPG/etc ? This looks very familiar. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 04:19:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26005 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5F8JDF10941 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:19:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F8JDm10938 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:19:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25996; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSh9-0002VT-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:16:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RSh9-0002VQ-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 04:16:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F721a06086; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:02:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5F71vm06076 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:01:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24892 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRUN-0002G9-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:59:43 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org ([192.150.187.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RRUM-0002G2-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:59:42 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h5F71hWT033254; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:01:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200306150701.h5F71hWT033254@jaguar.icir.org> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Paul Judge'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list ) In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:34:09 PDT. From: Vern Paxson Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:01:43 -0700 > If this is a research organization it does not make sense to require an > undertaking to require release of IPR before the utility of the proposal in > question is examined. > ... > There is no point in approaching an IPR owner to ask for a license before > you have decided whether you are even going to use it at all, let alone what > you are going to do. But that's not the requirement. The requirement is to disclose knowledge of the existence of IPR, not to try to secure a license to it. Given that, do you still disagree with the requirement? Vern _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 11:08:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04256 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FF8Ng05811 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:08:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FF8Nm05808 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:08:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04252; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZ55-00040q-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:06:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZ55-00040m-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:06:07 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FDL1a31808; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:21:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FDK2m31773 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:20:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01267 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RXOF-0003dR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:17:47 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RXOE-0003dO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:17:47 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19RXbG-0005TO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:31:14 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:58:58 EDT." <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:31:14 -0400 Meng Weng Wong wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > | > | It's not like spammers can't change their behavior, they often do, and > | this one isn't even hard to change. The fact that spammers can adapt to measures used to fight them doesn't mean we should give up the fight, as a lost cause. > I agree; we must play good chess. If SPF/DMP/RMX/... goes in, what do > you think the spammers will do next? Exactly. There is no "magic bullet", or "weapon of mass destruction" which may be used to fight spam. The ONLY possible method we can use is to gradually implement a series of changes to the network, and our use of it, which will make it unproductive to send spam. These measures will, of course, have a cost for the non-spammers, but that cost SHOULD be less than the cost that they are already bearing, of fighting spam. The rabid fight against any anti-spam measure which isn't perfect is something I've never understood, except from the "ulterior motives" perspective. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 11:44:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04735 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FFiSL07388 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFiSm07385 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04729; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZe2-000451-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:42:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZe1-00044y-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:42:13 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FDE1a31577; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:14:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FDDlm31567 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:13:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01159 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RXIC-0003bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:11:32 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RXIC-0003br-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:11:32 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19RXV8-0005T3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:24:54 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:54 -1000." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:24:54 -0400 "Peter Kay" wrote: > I think those type of comments and questions about what is patentable or > not are unproductive to this list, Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be explicitely on-topic for this list. > Unless you're a seasoned patent attorney, patent examiner, or one > that has submitted several patents and gone through the examination > process many times, all one can offer is something less than a > "armchair quarterback" opinion that will typically lead to even more > guessing and we'll end up getting excited over nothing. So people with experience in a technical field are unqualified to discuss technology in their field, as soon as the magic word "patent" appears. However, people knowledgable in the areas of patents are qualified to discuss technology in *other* peoples fields, even when those patent-people are manifestly untrained, and inexperienced in those fields. > Asking technical people for their opinions on the patent process is like > asking laypeople to comment on complex software architecture: you'll get > comments that are completely out of scope and wildly incorrect. Asking technical people for their opinions of the TECHNICAL MERITS of patents is always appropriate. ASRG is attempting to resolve the consent exchange issue, for email. Patents which limit the available solutions should be discussed. Patents which have prior art should also be discussed. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 13:46:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06360 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FHkPB13878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:46:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FHkOm13875 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:46:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06352; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RbY1-0004Uj-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:44:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RbY1-0004Ug-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:44:09 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFm1a07493; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:48:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFllm07480 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:47:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04805 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZhF-000460-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:45:33 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZhC-00045r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:45:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114533.00ba1bb0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , "'Selby Hatch'" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6.I Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key In-Reply-To: <000801c332b0$d218a810$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <3EEA3984.9010704@azza.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:47:27 -0400 At 04:09 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Selby Hatch wrote: > > 2. Only senders that have a key to your mailbox can send > > an email into your mailbox. > > 3. You will create one or more keys for your mailbox and > > enter them into the email address book entries for the > > persons you are giving the keys to. > > The system you have described is very similar to ones that have >been described and implemented in the past. Personally, I agree with you >that this particular method of fighting spam is likely to form part of a >very effective anti-spam system. The most interesting feature of such a >system is that it has immediate benefit to someone who adopts it and it >can be adopted by individuals rather than requiring support from ISPs, >network maintainers, etc. >[..] Is there a need for these systems to be interopable as per Eric William's requirement spec? Will someone have to eventually define a protocol so different "opt-in" systems can talk to each other? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 14:34:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06959 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FIXbd15770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:33:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FIXam15766 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:33:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06931; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcHh-0004c2-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:31:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcHg-0004bz-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:31:20 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FGC1a09101; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:12:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FGBYm09091 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:11:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05097 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ra4G-0004AN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:09:20 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ra4D-0004AK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:09:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615120833.00bb3d70@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:11:13 -0400 At 09:24 AM 6/15/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: >"Peter Kay" wrote: > > I think those type of comments and questions about what is patentable or > > not are unproductive to this list, > > Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be explicitely >on-topic for this list. I was originally planning on tracking prior art from the list for the document I am keeping. However, there is simply so much information being provided that I am rethinking the decision. However, I would have to agree with Alan about this: prior art discussions are practically useless for patents that have been already granted, since the group is not planning on using the prior art to challenge the patents. The only useful utility that may possible come from prior art is the determination of how strong the patent is - but then again we are not lawyers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 14:38:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07120 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FIbmo16832 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:37:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FIbmm16829 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:37:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07106; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcLk-0004eh-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:35:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcLj-0004ee-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:35:31 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFj1a07415; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:45:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFiQm07381 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04726 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZe0-00044v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:42:12 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZdy-00044s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:42:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:44:05 -0400 At 09:31 AM 6/15/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: >Meng Weng Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > | > > | It's not like spammers can't change their behavior, they often do, and > > | this one isn't even hard to change. > > The fact that spammers can adapt to measures used to fight them >doesn't mean we should give up the fight, as a lost cause. > > > I agree; we must play good chess. If SPF/DMP/RMX/... goes in, what do > > you think the spammers will do next? > > Exactly. > > There is no "magic bullet", or "weapon of mass destruction" which >may be used to fight spam. The ONLY possible method we can use is to >gradually implement a series of changes to the network, and our use of >it, which will make it unproductive to send spam. These measures >will, of course, have a cost for the non-spammers, but that cost >SHOULD be less than the cost that they are already bearing, of >fighting spam. >[..] Agreed. The spam problem might never go away, but these changes can gradually reduce the problem. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 15:08:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08048 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FJ8DM18600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:08:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FJ8Dm18597 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:08:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07987; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcpB-0004mM-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:05:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcpA-0004mJ-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:05:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FHo2a13966; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:50:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FHnXm13943 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:49:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06392 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rbb4-0004VC-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:47:18 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rbb1-0004V3-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:47:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615134904.00ba1d90@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric D. Williams" , "'Art Pollard'" , Rob Cameron , "Asrg@ietf.org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:49:05 -0400 At 11:18 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] >wrote: >8<...>8 > > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather > > than the FROM address. > >A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a >'senders' >private key? I think he meant a digital certificate issued by a third-part certificate authority, not a digital signature. > > Thus it would be quite possible for people to have > > multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail > > address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if > > they switched ISPs. > >Same private key? Yep - Same certificate. >8<...>8 > > ...When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a > > particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address. > >Caching of the public key? Yep. >-e >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 15:54:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09650 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FJrej20975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:53:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FJrem20972 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:53:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09637; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RdXB-0004z4-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:51:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RdXB-0004z1-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:51:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FHx1a14119; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FHwsm14108 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:58:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06465 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rbk7-0004WU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:56:39 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rbk5-0004WR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:56:38 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615135503.00ba1bb0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric D. Williams" , "asrg@ietf.org" , Peter Kay From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header In-Reply-To: <01C332C9.DF290A90.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:58:30 -0400 At 11:08 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >On Monday, June 09, 2003 2:39 PM, Yakov Shafranovich >[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: >8<...>8 > > HOWEVER, the same section states: > > > > "Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM command > > MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>"." > >A proper intepretation of that statement requires its full context. The >intent >is to prevent message looping. As such the CRI or other systems SHOULD >ensure >that specfied addresses do not violate that tenet. > > > The envelope sender address of the DSN SHOULD be chosen to ensure > that no delivery status reports will be issued in response to the DSN > itself, and MUST be chosen so that DSNs will not generate mail loops. > Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM > command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>". > > > > That means that C/R systems such as yours MUST support the empty return > > path (<>). > >No it does not, IMO, given the full context of the requirement. We were considering implementing CRI within the extension framework of DSNs. DSNs require the return path to be <>, so any system that would use such protocol in this matter, would require <> as well. I didn't not mean that ALL C/R systems will use it - thank you for pointing this out. Someone pointed out that DSNs might not be the best solution, since it is intended to be a one-way notification, as opposed to CRI where the challenge is intended to be responded to and there is also an issue of all systems that do not support CRI but support DSNs. I also contacted Keith Moore who wrote the DSN RFCs for his opinion, so we'll see how this one will fall out. DSNs have an advantage of having an ESMTP extension defined. In any case, we might want to take a look at the MIME type of "multipart/report" within which DSNs operate. This MIME part might be used for CRI, patterned after the DSNs structure. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 16:30:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10224 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FKTcR22895 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:29:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FKTcm22892 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:29:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10212; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Re60-00059Q-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:27:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Re5z-00059N-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:27:23 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FET1a03026; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:29:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FESpm03001 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:28:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03537 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RYSp-0003s0-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:26:35 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RYSo-0003rx-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:26:34 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5FESfgc006645 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:28:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306151428.h5FESfgc006645@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614225005.00bba8a0@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:28:41 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > The program used for archiving the lists is MHonArc, which has an anti-spam > module (see http://www.mhonarc.org/MHonArc/doc/resources/spammode.html). > Perhaps the administrators can turn it on in order to make sure that > addresses are not being harvested. The IETF mail administrator can be > reached at mailadm@ietf.org (from https://www1.ietf.org/maillist.html) and > the person that handles our list is Jakob Munoz who can be reached at > jmunoz@ietf.org (from https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg). GNU > MailMan, which handles the actual mailing list, might have anti-spam > features as well. Even without have heard of experiements that show spammers are prefectly capable of writing, finding, and/or using software that can and does recover mail addresses from any such "anti-spam" feature, common sense should tell one that is likely. It is impossible to create a mechanism that leaves addresses in a form that can be used by people but that cannot be decoded by a program. (Look for the neologisms "munge" and "demunge.") Therefore you must be advocating the complete censoring of all addresses from this and presumably all IETF and IRTF mailing list archives. I suspect many people would object to that on grounds related to the notion that IETF and IRTF mailing lists are in some sense public and official. As I've said before, I think that the price of admission to this mailing list should include sufficient practical knowledge of spam and spam defenses to not need to worry about exposing one's address. Besides, anyone advocating challenge-response, authentication, or any of several other spam defenses and complains about spam as a result of address exposure here or anywhere is either admitting practical ignorance of the adovcated defense or saying that the advocated defense is useless. > Alas, for all we know that could be spammers on the list > as well who want revenge, also I highly doubt it. I don't know about "revenge," but I am convinced that certain superficial changes in some common spam in the last 60 days were prompted by discussions here. I trust you did not intend to suggest that you doubt that spammers would either subscribe to this mailing list or regularly check the archives, since that would be silly. Spammers have more interest in effective spam defenses than almost anyone else except perhaps people working for organizations that are selling or want to sell spam defenses (effective or not). ..... Concerning delays in receiving copies of mail from this or any big list: Please consider obvious aspects how any bulk mail system run by spammers, the IETF, or anyone must work. The simplest implementation is to send copies one at a time to addresses in the list. If sending each copy takes 5 seconds, then the thousandth address will receive its copy more than an hour after the first address. In practice, many transmissions will take less than a second and there will be a significant amount of parallelism, but that parallelism will be modest and there will be many slow or silent SMTP servers in the list that will make the average time/copy large. In practice, bulk mailing software will keep lists sorted. The result is quite familiar to anyone with with an address near the end of the alphabet and any experience with large mailing lists. We get our copies from the list hours and sometimes literally days after people at the front of the list and after "courtesy" copies. In addition, this mailing list may be manually moderated. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 17:45:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11616 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FLjMi28321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:45:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FLjMm28318 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:45:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11602; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RfHG-0005VA-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:43:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RfHG-0005V7-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:43:06 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFd1a07249; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:39:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FFcgm07236 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:38:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA04652 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZYS-00043z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:36:28 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RZYQ-00043t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:36:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615113752.00bb7318@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Eric D. Williams" , Eric Dean , "asrg@ietf.org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:37:53 -0400 So I am assuming that you will be adding extensibility requirements as part of the requirements draft you are working on? At 11:48 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >This message intends to address the issue raised concerning this statement: > >'Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as >extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own >features >such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc.' > >This is a SHOULD part of the broader requirement. Sorry if that was unclear. > I am getting back up to speed after a few days, only this message left > to go >;-). > >-e > >On Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:07 PM, Yakov Shafranovich >[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > Can you be more specific as to which part of the CRI proposal you were > > referring to? > > > > At 10:58 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > >Currently this is the 'requirement' - it is being slightly modified > per Paul > > >Judge's inputs. > > > > > >2.9 Goal Oriented Solution > > > > > > The proposal SHOULD provide a carefully drafted scope of its > > > goals and its effectiveness at addressing those goals. Systems > > > SHOULD consider how they interoperate with other [anti-spam] systems. > > > > > >-e > > > > > >On Monday, June 09, 2003 12:22 PM, Yakov Shafranovich > > >[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > At 05:09 PM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Maybe I'm a minimalist, but I'm not sure where 998 characters is a > > > limit for > > > > >CRI. Hell, I'm not even concerned about the 78 characters that are > > > > >"preferred". > > > > > > > > > >I would prefer not including hash cash, digital sigs, etc within a CRI > > > > >model. I'd prefer to keep it simple. that's not to say that these > > > > >additional capabilities are not warranted nor provide additional > > > value. In > > > > >fact, they may be of such value that they can stand alone. > > > > > > > > Should we be building in an extension mechanism that would allow for >that? > > > > > > > > SMTP for example is a simple protocol, but has an extension mechanism > > > > which > > > > allows for a lot more complex stuff. > > > > > > > > >Regarding SMTP mods..I think we should reserve that concept and > develop > > > > >it > > > > >within a subsequent version...but rather focus and define what's > > > > >currently > > > > >at hand. There are a few dozen C/R system that could benefit from an > > > > >interworking model > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > Now that the issue on the RFC 2822 headers is settled, I would like > > > > > > to > > > > > > bring up the issue of MIME and SMTP for CRI. Like I pointed out > > > > > > before, in > > > > > > my opinion the CRI protocol should utilize both RFC 2822 and MIME > > > > > > headers, > > > > > > with optional SMTP negotiation. In certain instances, like Vernon > > > stated, > > > > > > MIME headers would have to be used when large amounts of data > > > > > > (larger than > > > > > > the 998 character limit of RFC 2822 headers) need to be > transferred. > > > > > > Examples would be C/R systems transferring digital certificate > > > chains and > > > > > > replying with a single challenge/response message for multiple > > > > > > recipients. > > > > > > Additionally, SMTP CRI via some ESMTP extension would be useful > > > > > > in certain > > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI > protocol > > > > > > as > > > > > > extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their > > > > > > own > > > > > > features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:47 AM 6/8/2003 -0400, Eric Dean wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with > > > > > > proposing a new > > > > > > >RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, > > > > > > then so be it. > > > > > > >I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate > > > > > > >in > > > > > > >the > > > > > > >meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed > > > > > > 2822 headers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com] > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM > > > > > > > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich > > > > > > > > [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > > > > > > > > > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean > > > > > > > > [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com] > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >8<...>8 > > > > > > > > > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There > > > > > > > > isn't an RFC > > > > > > > > > > > 2822 > > > > > > > > > > > registration process that I am aware of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the > > > > > > > > introduction > > > > > > > > > >of an > > > > > > > > > >new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as > > > > > > effective?' > > > > > > > > > >[..] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until > > > > > > the standard > > > > > > > > > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the > standard > > > > > > > > is approved > > > > > > > > > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is > > > > > > similar to the > > > > > > > > > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to > > > > > > indicate gzip > > > > > > > > > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to > > > > > > > > interpose is that > > > > > > > > perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for > > > > > > > > the proposal is > > > > > > > > the type of question that should be asked at this state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >Asrg mailing list > > > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 19:25:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14136 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:25:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5FNPIx01736 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:25:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FNPHm01733 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:25:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14132; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rgpz-0005qv-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:23:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rgpy-0005qs-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:23:02 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FLL2a26687; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:21:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FLKbm26592 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:20:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11145 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RetK-0005O4-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:18:22 -0400 Received: from 000-249-011.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.212.92] helo=68.27.212.92) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RetH-0005O1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:18:20 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615172007.00bb3d70@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:20:09 -0400 At 08:28 AM 6/15/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich >[..] > > > Alas, for all we know that could be spammers on the list > > as well who want revenge, also I highly doubt it. > >I don't know about "revenge," but I am convinced that certain superficial >changes in some common spam in the last 60 days were prompted by >discussions here. > >I trust you did not intend to suggest that you doubt that spammers >would either subscribe to this mailing list or regularly check the >archives, since that would be silly. Spammers have more interest in >effective spam defenses than almost anyone else except perhaps people >working for organizations that are selling or want to sell spam defenses >(effective or not). Vernon is raising an interesting point - we are operating as a public organization and thus are in full view of the very people we are trying to stop - the spammers. I personally think that is an advantage since we can see the reactions of the spammers to our discussions very quickly and can adjust accordingly. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 21:04:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15728 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G142p07590 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G142m07587 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15724; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RiNX-0006H9-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:01:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RiNW-0006H6-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:01:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FLT1a26949; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:29:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FLS9m26925 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:28:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11320 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:28:06 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rf0c-0005RU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:25:54 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rf0b-0005RQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:25:53 -0400 Received: (cpmta 8654 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2003 14:28:05 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 15 Jun 2003 14:28:05 -0700 X-Sent: 15 Jun 2003 21:28:05 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:26:42 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:53:32 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:53:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Howdy! Since I'm a recent addition to this list, let me briefly introduce myself. Name's Gordon Peterson, live in Dallas. I've been active in computer E-mail and networking longer than most, I guess... including being the creator and programmer of the system software for the world's first commercially available LAN system. (Datapoint's ARC System, developed during 1976, delivered and announced in 1977) I'll never forget the "oh, no..." moment (back in the internetworked BBS days) when it started to dawn on me that there was probably going to be an increasing role in such systems for moderators and monitors, due to abuse/spam/such issues. Recently I joined the spf-discuss list, where their focus is DNS-based approaches to identify "home domains" for specified users/senders, so that anyone on the Net can tell if the "From" address doesn't match the IP address or MTA that the mail is coming from (which *might* indicate a forged return address... or might not!) While in general making E-mail more accountable is *usually* (perhaps not always...!) a good idea, it strikes me that it does NOT achieve what they claim to be their goal... and comes at a high (perhaps unreasonably high) cost to many types of users who for legitimate reasons sometimes post from atypical locations (e.g. internet cafe on board a cruise ship, kiosk in an airport waiting lounge, etc). Their approach also has the major disadvantage that implementation virtually requires an essentially global change to the setup of mail servers everywhere, which I think is unrealistic. And, of course, million-subscriber ISPs sorta make it fairly meaningless to affirm that the From: address is valid on their IP-address-range... During the discussion it struck me that a better approach to the problem is the following: A recipient should be able to create a specific-permission "whitelist" which lists the senders (by E-mail address) to which they wish to assign "special" privileges. Senders who are not on the whitelist would only be allowed to send that recipient plain, unencoded, ASCII text E-mails without HTML, scripting, encoding, or any kind of attachments. So the permissions a recipient could assign to certain "approved/trusted" senders would be (one or more, individually selectable): * may send HTML * may send attachments * may include scripting * may include ActiveX and similar * may use encoded text (e.g. text in base64 encoding) * (perhaps) a maximum message size for the indicated sender By default, each of those specific permissions would be set to "prohibited", including for senders where the sender was not (yet?) included on the recipient's whitelist. Mail violating the permissions specified would be either simply t-canned or else bounced back to the sender as undeliverable. The whitelist would be maintained either at the recipient's mail server, or local ISP's mail server, or else (for their own domain) at the domain provider/mail forwarder... probably, as soon as the mail resolves to the addressee domain. You'll note that this scheme does not provide for the blocking (at this level, anyhow) of plain ASCII text spams. True. More on that later. But the great majority of spams use a variety of tricks to get past content filters, and to deceive recipients. A *large* subset of those tricks are based on HTML: 1) HTML comments (and bogus HTML tags) to break up and obscure mail content, and to confuse content filters; 2) graphic-mode-text (likewise); 3) links which purport to be one thing but where the actual hyperlink in fact (and usually invisibly) points somewhere else; 4) scripting where the message displayed only can be viewed as a result of the computational process, again to make things difficult for content filters. Attachments (especially in unsolicited E-mails) tend to frequently contain viruses, worms, "background music" that's actually a PIF or EXE file, and things of that sort. Getting attachments from someone who doesn't ordinarily send those is a warning sign that it might well be malicious. I've seen several spams which use base64 encoding of the message text, again to confuse content filters. Legitimate E-mails rarely if ever send encoded text. The important thing to understand here is that any user who WISHES to receive any of these 'dangerous'/dubious things in their e-mails from specific, trusted originating E-mail addresses would be easily able to enable that for that specific sender. Genuinely unsolicited E-mails, however, virtually *never* _need_ to have HTML-burdened bodies. HTML-burdened E-mail (including its 3-5x greater bulk over plain ASCII text) is inefficient, and generally not worth the extra bandwidth, inbox space, and risk that it entails. A sender who exceptionally needs to send "unusual" content could send a plain ASCII E-mail requesting advance permission to do so, and the intended recipient could either agree or not, as appropriate. By enabling a user to simply t-can any unexpected HTML-burdened (or attachment-carrying) incoming message (and ideally as soon as it got to their domain provider or ISP), spammers would be denied many of their most cherished and valuable tricks. Content filters would be far more useful and efficient. And much more of the remaining unsolicited spam that WOULD still be sent would be sent in plain ASCII text (knowing that sending unsolicited HTML E-mail was the kiss of death...) meaning it would reduce wasted bandwidth for such remaining spam mail net-wide by at least a factor of three to five. Other advantages of this approach is that it doesn't require any kind of global agreement or flash-cutover date. Individual ISPs could offer such a specific-sender-permissions system IMMEDIATELY to their users, and this would have a HUGE impact, in my observation, both on the amount of spam (and other wasteful HTML-burdened mail) they receive, as well as in a great reduction of the residual spam that would slip through SpamAssassin-type keyword and other content filtering. So again, to sum up: Unsolicited E-mails from unfamiliar/untrusted senders (and this would be the default) that contained HTML, scripting, attachments, or encoded text would be bounced or t-canned. A recipient could easily and quickly enable those various types of E-mail extended features individually or in combination for specified originating E-mail addresses. Remaining mail (including, potentially, residual spam) would be generally smaller in bulk (3-5x, due to no HTML-burdening in mail from untrusted senders) and far more easily processed using content-based filters such as SpamAssassin. The spam/bandwidth/bulk would be truncated as soon as the mail reached the destination domain, reducing bandwidth/storage costs for ISPs over simple user-end approaches. Space would be accordingly conserved in limited-size ISP inboxes. The approach can be implemented piecemeal and incrementally (starting at once) without requiring Net-wide consensus on new technologies or protocols. Ideas/comments/(support!) would be welcome. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 21:46:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16425 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G1jXa10610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:45:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G1jXm10607 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:45:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16418; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rj1i-0006Pk-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:43:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rj1h-0006Ph-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:43:17 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FNF1a01472; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FNE7m01435 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13955 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RgfB-0005oB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:11:53 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RgfA-0005o8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:11:52 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXB51801; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-84-191-38.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.191.38]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIP56676; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <001601c33393$cef8b240$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615120833.00bb3d70@std5.imagineis.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5FNE8m01436 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The only useful utility that may possible come from > prior art is the determination of how strong the > patent is - but then again we are not lawyers. No. This is simply not true. First, the "strength" of the patent is only of secondary interest in a "research" group where the focus should be on determining what is the best mechanism or process for ending the spam problem. The "strength" of a patent will only become interesting once one is at the point of recommending specific solutions -- not when we're still trying to understand what solutions are possible. To understand this application domain, we need to understand the patented methods, and their prior art, as well as the unpatented ones. Discovering and discussing prior art is useful in that this prior art might reveal some aspect of a solution that the patent doesn't cover. Remember, the goal here is "research" or "learning." Also, the presence of prior art is something that should eventually get used by those who take the non-research step of recommending and investing in specific solutions. Just as it is important to know that one or another method is encumbered, it is important to know that prior art may exist for one or another encumbering patent. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 21:51:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16668 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G1pTX10847 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:51:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G1pTm10843 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:51:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16663; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rj7R-0006Ro-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:49:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rj7R-0006Rl-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:49:13 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FMt1a32610; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:55:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FMsGm32591 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:54:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13755 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RgLv-0005l5-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:51:59 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.attbi.com ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RgLv-0005kw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:51:59 -0400 Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <200306152253390120098hnge>; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:53:39 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030615164753.05733610@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Eric D. Williams" , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework In-Reply-To: <01C332CB.3F7862F0.eric@infobro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:55:31 -0600 At 11:18 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, you wrote: >On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] >wrote: >8<...>8 > > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather > > than the FROM address. > >A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a >'senders' private key? A digital signature uses a public / private key pair and a hash (typically SHA). Given the public key then the signature and message could be verified. The message would be signed with the private key as it went out. The message's header would contain: 1) The digital signature (generated by the public/private key pair and the message) 2) The public key. The whitelisting would occur based not on the e-mail address but on the public key. Thus when a new message comes in, the public key would be looked up in the whitelist to see if it is already there. If it is there, the message can be checked with the public key and the signature to ensure that the proper public / private key pair actually was used to sign the message and that the message has not been altered. By whitelisting on the public key and not the e-mail address / username/etc. the user can move between machines and accounts without new challenges as long as they use the same public/private key pair to sign their messages. > > Thus it would be quite possible for people to have > > multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail > > address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if > > they switched ISPs. > >Same private key? Yep. >8<...>8 > > ...When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a > > particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address. > >Caching of the public key? Yep. The public key would be cached and would be used in the whitelisting process. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 15 22:31:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17121 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G2UgT12805 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:30:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G2Ufm12802 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:30:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA17104; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RjjN-0006ZK-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:28:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RjjN-0006ZH-00; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:28:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FMk1a32446; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:46:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FMjam32435 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:45:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13690 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RgDY-0005kI-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:43:20 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc13.attbi.com ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RgDY-0005kF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:43:20 -0400 Received: from art.lextek.com (12-254-130-29.client.attbi.com[12.254.130.29](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <20030615224503016001jrd7e>; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:45:03 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030615164648.057334d0@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:46:55 -0600 At 01:49 PM 6/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >At 11:18 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > >>On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] >>wrote: >>8<...>8 >> > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather >> > than the FROM address. >> >>A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a >>'senders' >>private key? > >I think he meant a digital certificate issued by a third-part certificate >authority, not a digital signature. Actually, I meant a digital signature. ;-) Given a digital signature, one can be assured that the person who the mail says wrote the message actually wrote the message. It will assist to prevent spoofing of the sender's information (such as when spammers search archives to figure out who knows who). I envision when the whitelisting of an individual happens, their public key would be kept on record. The public key could be given in the header of the message that passed the CR process. Then if a new message comes in, the public key (again in the header) would be looked up to see if it has been whitelisted. If it is not in the whitelist, a challenge would be sent. If it is in the whitelist, then the message would be checked to ensure that the key and the signature match. If it passes then the message goes to the user. If it does not pass, a challenge would be sent. So, in a sense, the whitelisting would be based on the public key -- not on the e-mail address or user name or something forgable. This avoids having a third party authority having to provide certificates for one person or another. People could generate their own key sets. And as long as they provided the same public/private keys to each account that they used then their previous whitelistings would go with them. You do not need somebody to provide a certificate since the odds of having two people having the same public/private key pair are minimal and if there were a collision, there isn't much that a spammer could do about it. And even if they could, it would only consist of spamming only a handful of people (like 1-100) -- not the millions that they are used to. It just wouldn't be worth their time and effort. I don't think that certificates through a third party that guarantee that someone is who they say they are are really worthwhile since all it takes is for someone dishonest to start handing out falsified certificates. Or if a centralized certificate authorities were used, they would have a hard time keeping up with applications. Instead, just let people generate their own public/private keys and don't pay attention to whether they are who they say they are as the CR system will weed out those who have malicious intent. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 04:06:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05036 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G863N13260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G861m13257 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:06:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05005; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Roxu-0000c0-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:03:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Roxt-0000bw-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 04:03:45 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G6J1a05153; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:19:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G6Idm05142 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:18:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02873; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RnHy-0007bU-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:16:22 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org ([192.150.187.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RnHy-0007bR-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:16:22 -0400 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h5G6ISWT000662; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:18:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200306160618.h5G6ISWT000662@jaguar.icir.org> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'ietf@ietf.org'" , "'Paul Judge'" , "'Kee Hinckley'" , "'Asrg@ietf.org'" In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 15 Jun 2003 05:10:43 PDT. From: Vern Paxson Subject: [Asrg] Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:18:28 -0700 > I disagree with the requirement because I don't think there is > an enforceable requirement. I think that if there is a problem > and a court case results, that the way the IPR policy has been > enacted will allow any barely competent lawyer to get arround > it. As I previously stated, this is an *interim* policy because the IRTF does not have a formal policy at this point, and putting one together is going to take a fair amount of time. Even if it is unenforceable, there is a notion of maintaining ethical behavior; most of us comply with rules of professional conduct even if they are not legally enforceable. Vern _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 05:58:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06646 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G9wVq20416 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:58:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G9wVm20413 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:58:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06640; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rqik-00010M-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:56:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rqik-00010J-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:56:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G7r1a12597; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G7qam12585 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:52:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04689 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rokv-0000Xr-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:50:21 -0400 Received: from nat.alvestrand.no ([217.13.28.204] helo=eikenes.alvestrand.no) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Roku-0000Xc-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:50:20 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D30862207; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:52:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Yakov Shafranovich , Shannon Jacobs , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! Message-ID: <237390000.1055749923@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614225005.00bba8a0@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030614225005.00bba8a0@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5G7qem12586 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:52:03 +0200 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by www1.ietf.org id h5G7r1a12597 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5G9wVm20413 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --On lřrdag, juni 14, 2003 22:50:06 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > On the last note, consider this little gem from the IETF's spam control > policy page (https://www1.ietf.org/spamcontrol.html): > > "The Anti-Spam Research Group of the IRTF is ignored by all policies to > prevent interruption of service." this was my little contribution.... There were so many phrases that triggered the spam filters at the IETF occuring in postings to the ASRG list that I told them to turn the filters off for that list. Too many false positives and too few people devoted to sorting through the rubbish. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 10:30:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16061 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GEU0e06849 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:30:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GEU0m06846 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:30:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16000; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RuxT-0002xx-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:27:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RuxS-0002xt-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:27:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G9W1a18785; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:32:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G9Vlm18769 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:31:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06281 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RqIs-0000wK-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:29:30 -0400 Received: from nat.alvestrand.no ([217.13.28.204] helo=eikenes.alvestrand.no) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RqIs-0000wF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:29:30 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no [192.168.1.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF2A62207; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:31:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Kee Hinckley , Paul Judge Cc: "'Asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list ) Message-ID: <252930000.1055755873@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5G9Vlm18770 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:31:14 +0200 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by www1.ietf.org id h5G9W1a18785 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5GEU0m06846 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --On lřrdag, juni 14, 2003 20:59:08 -0400 Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 9:39 PM -0400 6/13/03, Paul Judge wrote: >> Is there a particular sentence that is unclear to you? The text is >> directly from RFC 2026. > >>> "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the >>> contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions >>> on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he >>> represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the >>> contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in >>> addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the >>> actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was >>> made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on >>> his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and >>> any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. > > Well, part of the problem is that there are only two sentences, but there > are about half a dozen sub clauses. rest assured that the new version has many, many more sentences :-) > I think I understand the first sentence, but it raises more issues than > it helps. What does "represents" mean? Does that mean I need to stick a > clause in every suggestion I make, stating that this is not an official > statement from my organization? actually it means that you don't have to stick explicit clauses into your statements, because you are "deemed to agree". > But anyway, the first sentence simply > seems to say that by the acting of contributing a (something, not clear > what) I'm agreeing to the following terms, and I'm agreeing to them for > everyone who I might possibly represent. The more I think about that, the > more I find it unacceptable. Agreement should be explicit, not implicit. > (Sounds like we're defining spam here :-). It's supposed to be more an encoding of common sense: If you claim to speak on behalf of others, we have a right to assume that you have secured the right to speak for them; if you claim to not speak on behalf of others, we have a right to assume that you have secured the right to speak on your own. If you get into trouble because you spoke when you shouldn't, that's your problem, not the IRTF's. > The second sentence is the one that lost me. After reading it several > times I think it means. > > The submitter promises that everyone with ownership of the > contribution has been aware of, and agrees to, these terms. > > Now that I understand that, I don't find it acceptable either. > > You need to define "contribution". Are we talking a formal contribution > made to the ASRG as in "here is my document, documenting what I think we > ought to do"? Or are we talking about the bunch of us bouncing around > ideas and making suggestions. Because if it's the latter, then I think > there are a number of people on this list who are going to have to pull > out. -- By the terms of RFC 2026 as clarified by the IPR WG, any time you send to an IETF mailing list, you are making a contribution. If you bounce an idea off the list that you know is patented, or otherwise encumbered by IPR, it's your responsibility to tell us; if you don't know that it is, you don't have a responsibility to spend research time to find out if there is. But this is the IRTF, not the IETF, and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I speak for any of them..... this is MY opinion of what it means.... Harald _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 14:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23497 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GI9AH23638 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:09:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GI9Am23635 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:09:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23473; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RyNZ-0004gR-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:06:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RyNY-0004gO-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:06:52 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG83a15335; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:08:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG7om15313 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19358 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwUA-0003el-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:05:34 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwUA-0003ei-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:05:34 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 356B3DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616160749.GC25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Summary of Objections, erratum Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:49 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | 3) conclude that because technical solutions have not solved spam in | the past, they cannot possibly solve spam in the future; this is | the "spam is ultimately a social / technical / legal problem" camp; er, that should be "social / economic / legal". Sorry. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 14:45:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24978 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GIj0R26171 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:45:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GIj0m26167 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:45:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24971; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RywE-00058A-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:42:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RywD-000587-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:42:41 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGT1a16059; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:29:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGSSm16027 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:28:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19821 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rwo7-0003mP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:26:11 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rwo7-0003mL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:26:11 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id D8777DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:28:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Meng Weng Wong , Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616162825.GF29227@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <20030616163347.B57133@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616163347.B57133@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] SPF: Objection: spammers will use <> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:28:25 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:33:47PM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: | | spammers will switch back to empty envelope senders. The original DMP I-D says, in the case of a blank envelope sender, test using the HELO domain instead of the envelope sender domain. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 15:09:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26253 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GJ8YY28121 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:08:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GJ8Xm28118 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:08:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26191; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RzJ2-0005LX-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:06:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RzJ1-0005LU-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:06:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGA1a15400; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:10:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG9Nm15365 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:09:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19373 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwVf-0003fR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:07 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwV3-0003fB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:06:29 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id EF972DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:08:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616160843.GD25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 5 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:08:43 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 5) misunderstand some technical detail of SPF, and take up arms | against a chimera; (5): SPF doesn't say anything about RFC822 header addresses. It only has to do with the RFC821 envelope sender address. You may still forge whatever headers you wish. Forwarding systems and kiosks can easily achieve SPF compliance by using a sender rewriting scheme (SRS); I am developing a simple I-D to describe one possible SRS. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 15:25:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27452 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GJOx528749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:24:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GJOwm28746 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:24:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27394; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RzYw-0005Wn-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:22:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RzYw-0005Wk-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:22:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGI1a15634; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGH7m15580 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:17:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19577 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rwd9-0003iK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:14:51 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rwd8-0003iH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:14:51 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 80C1CDE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:17:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616161705.GG25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:17:05 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ... some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 8) do not see beyond the short future that is explicitly described; | Of course spammers will react to SPF. If you can think of specific actions they will take, let's discuss them. I've already thought of one response; the "throwaway domain" scenario is addressed in the FAQ at http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#noprevent Many eyes make bugs shallow, process of dialectic, yadda yadda. Help me make this proposal the best that it can be. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 16:14:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29893 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GKEDN32692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:14:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GKECm32689 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:14:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29871; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0Ka-000683-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:11:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0KZ-000680-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:11:55 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGD1a15483; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:13:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGD0m15473 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:13:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19475 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwZ9-0003hH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:10:43 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwZ9-0003hE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:10:43 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id CC2A8DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616161257.GF25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 7 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:12:57 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ... some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 7) assert flatly that it won't work; assert that similar approaches | have been proposed and, broadly, "failed"; therefore so will SPF; | Damian Conway: "if nothing you've tried so far has worked, try something new." SPF counts as new. I have seen several people criticize SPF as unworkable. I invite them to propose a specific alternative. If they will not, then these people won't lead, and they won't follow; they need to get out of the way. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 16:29:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00756 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GKTEZ00891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:29:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GKTEm00888 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:29:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00725; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0Z8-0006Nf-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:26:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0Z7-0006Nc-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:26:57 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG52a14148; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:05:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG4Km14126 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18999 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwQm-0003Yv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:02:04 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwQl-0003Ys-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:02:03 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id AE156DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616160418.GA25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objections 1 and 2 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:18 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 1) get stuck trying to define spam, and because they can't define it, | claim that nobody else can either, and so cannot imagine how to | solve a problem they cannot frame; | | 2) champion a personal definition of spam, and attack technical | solutions because those solutions do not match their definitions; (1) and (2) are a problem of definition. SPF avoids the quicksand of definition entirely. SPF is merely an *extension* of SMTP which *closes a security hole*; it improves the veracity of sender addresses among consenting hosts. It also fights worms and viruses; it also fights forgery. Right now lots of our customers misconfigure their home machines as pobox.com, and send bounce messages using From: postmaster@pobox.com. The double-bounces end up in my mailbox. SPF helps solve this problem also. If SPF works against spam, what a happy coincidence! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 16:34:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01095 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GKXr301212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GKXrm01209 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01068; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0dc-0006RF-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:31:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0dc-0006RC-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:31:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGJ1a15696; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:19:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGIbm15664 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19611 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rweb-0003ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:16:21 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rwea-0003ih-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:16:20 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id CD389DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616161834.GH25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:34 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 9) prefer a different approach; | This is a perfectly respectable objection. In this war on spam we can use as many weapons as we can get. We don't have to pick just one solution; they can work together. It's time to review the proposals and unite behind the best ones. If you evaluate the proposals along the dimensions of scalability, backward-compatibility, transparency, level of inconvenience to users, universal applicability, implementation timeframe, and cost of new code and configuration, SPF comes out near the head of the pack. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 16:51:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01894 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GKpN602650 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:51:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GKpNm02647 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:51:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01878; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0uY-0006eU-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:49:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0uX-0006eR-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:49:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GEY2a07106; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:34:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GEXqm07092 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:33:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16210 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rv1D-0002zS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:31:35 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rv1C-0002zP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:31:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 69430 invoked by uid 1013); 16 Jun 2003 14:33:47 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Meng Weng Wong Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Message-ID: <20030616163347.B57133@Space.Net> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com>; from mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com on Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:58:58AM -0400 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:47 +0200 On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:58:58AM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > | > | It's not like spammers can't change their behavior, they often do, and > | this one isn't even hard to change. > > I agree; we must play good chess. If SPF/DMP/RMX/... goes in, what do > you think the spammers will do next? spammers will switch back to empty envelope senders. Then all people will start to block bounces. This causes the eMail-system to become totally unreliable. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 17:29:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03494 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GLTUX06155 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:29:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GLTUm06152 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:29:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03472; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S1VQ-00076l-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:27:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S1VQ-00076i-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:27:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGC1a15450; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:12:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GGBbm15423 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19451 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwXp-0003h2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:09:21 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwXo-0003gz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:09:21 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 5980EDE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616161135.GE25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 6 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11:35 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 6) recognize that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs; | but, fearing that theirs are the eggs to be broken, storm the kitchen; This is a political problem, and will ultimately be answered by the industry. Damian Conway said today: "everything that brings joy also brings pain." The pain of a world where SMTP permits forgery, anonymity, and spam is greater to me than the pain of a world where SASL+SMTP+SPF require authenticated logins to home servers. I expect leading ISPs to act for the majority of their users, and I expect the majority of the users to agree with me. SPF tries to cushion the blow to those with fragile eggs by providing the mechanism of Sender Rewriting and by advocating SASL. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 18:22:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06517 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GMLsA10134 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:21:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GMLrm10131 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:21:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06507; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S2K8-0007bk-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:19:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S2K7-0007bh-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:19:35 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG81a15326; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:08:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG75m14550 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19316 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwTR-0003eC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:49 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwTR-0003e9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:04:49 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 8475DDE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616160703.GB25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objections 3 and 4 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:07:03 -0400 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: | | ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 3) conclude that because technical solutions have not solved spam in | the past, they cannot possibly solve spam in the future; this is | the "spam is ultimately a social / economic / legal problem" camp; | | 4) observe that no single solution is perfect, and fall into despair; (3) is an objection unique to pessimists. We technical types, being professional practitioners of pessimism, must be especially wary. We have nothing to lose by trying a new approach. Optimism in this case is more productive than pessimism. People who assert that technical approaches won't work are sticking their necks out: the statement can't be proven, only disproven. What is the use of a newborn baby? Let the social / economic / legal solutions proceed apace; we should not abandon the technical track. (4) is a problem for those who are both pessimists and perfectionists. An 80% solution that works is better than a 100% solution that doesn't exist. Spam costs ISPs money; they are looking for answers today. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 18:34:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06908 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GMYXM10673 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:34:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GMYXm10669 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:34:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06878; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S2WN-0007gD-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:32:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S2WM-0007gA-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:32:14 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG31a14097; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:03:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GG25m14050 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18861 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwOb-0003XP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:59:49 -0400 Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RwOa-0003XK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:59:48 -0400 Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id 2A2E9DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:01:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Meng Weng Wong To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Subject: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:01:58 -0400 On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:44:05AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: | | Agreed. The spam problem might never go away, but these changes can | gradually reduce the problem. | Most objections to SPF have come from people who 1) get stuck trying to define spam, and because they can't define it, claim that nobody else can either, and so cannot imagine how to solve a problem they cannot frame; 2) champion a personal definition of spam, and attack technical solutions because those solutions do not match their definitions; 3) conclude that because technical solutions have not solved spam in the past, they cannot possibly solve spam in the future; this is the "spam is ultimately a social / technical / legal problem" camp; 4) observe that no single solution is perfect, and fall into despair; 5) misunderstand some technical detail of SPF, and take up arms against a chimera; 6) recognize that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs; but, fearing that theirs are the eggs to be broken, storm the kitchen; 7) assert flatly that it won't work; assert that similar approaches have been proposed and, broadly, "failed"; therefore so will SPF; 8) do not see beyond the short future that is explicitly described; 9) prefer a different approach; 10) or have a personal reason to see spam survive and grow. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 18:48:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07499 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GMmPJ12239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:48:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GMmPm12236 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:48:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07490; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S2jn-000020-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:46:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S2jm-00001x-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:46:06 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GKq1a02680; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:52:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GKprm02670 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:51:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01892 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0v2-0006ek-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:49:36 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0v1-0006ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:49:35 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19S0x5-0001GC-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:51:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030616161834.GH25291@dumbo.pobox.com> Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 To: "Meng Weng Wong" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.6] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:51:43 +0100 > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: I don't know if this is just me but I find this thread (these threads) confusing. Perhaps it might be better to stick to a single subject... and/or a smaller number of longer posts, rather than creating a new subject for every paragraph. Also, I find multiple IDs in the References unhelpful. (It's "discouraged" in RFC2822) Or maybe I'm missing something. Thanks anyway. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 19:09:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08003 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GN9OT13994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:09:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GN9Om13991 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:09:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07997; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S346-0000Az-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:07:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S345-0000Aw-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:07:05 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (a.mx.viagraonlinenow.biz [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GIv1a26622; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GIurm26604 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:56:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25414 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rz7j-0005EG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:54:35 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rz7h-0005Dw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:54:34 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A32C6B50062; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:57:48 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:01:23 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Join ASRG and display your email address for the spammers!! Thread-Index: AcMzgiHqfKhiv/brRlKQn9RP2HGBKwAtr1Pw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5GIurm26605 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:56:31 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think Vernon said it best about this topic: > As I've said before, I think that the price of admission to > this mailing list should include sufficient practical > knowledge of spam and spam defenses to not need to worry > about exposing one's address. Besides, anyone advocating > challenge-response, authentication, or any of several other > spam defenses and complains about spam as a result of address > exposure here or anywhere is either admitting practical > ignorance of the adovcated defense or saying that the > advocated defense is useless. > Anyone with reasonable knowledge of spam knows that public dicussions are common source of email addresses for spammers and this list, if any, would be one that spammers would monitor extremely closely (btw, I suspect that an email inquirty I recently received from someone in Hungary was a spammer) as a source of knowledge of the research as well as email addresses. So I would definitely say that if you don't have good anti-spam processes working, don't post. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 20:00:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09288 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GNxsd16737 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:59:54 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GNxsm16734 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:59:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09268; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:59:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S3qz-0000WH-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:57:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S3qy-0000WE-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:57:36 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GHS1a20076; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:28:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GHRZm20044 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:27:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21651; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RxjK-0004DT-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:25:18 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RxjI-0004DQ-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:25:17 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5GHRNVn025361 env-from ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:27:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306161727.h5GHRNVn025361@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D222C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Subject: [Asrg] Re: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HAS FAILED Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:27:23 -0600 (MDT) > From: Paul Vixie > ... therefore it's possible that your rant [about ASRG moderation] That raises an issue that I think the IETF and IRTF and certainly the ASRG moderator should consider. All contributions that are rejected by any moderators (including spam filters) of any IRTF or IETF mailing lists must be archived and should be published on web pages somewhere. Archiving is obviously critical for the defense of the moderators against charges of unfairness, self-dealing, and so forth. Publishing the rejected contributions would go a long way toward defusing or even refuting such charges with minimal embarrassment to those making them and disruption of valuable IETF and IRTF activities. There might be some extreme contributions perhaps involving child pornography or libel that could not be published, but those are surely rare and could be dealt with individually. I hope that all of the rejected contributions to the ASRG mailing list have been archived. Based on "courtesy" copies of messages that have been sent to me, I suspect that publishing the messages rejected for the ASRG list would be quite helpful. Publishing them would do no harm to the work of the mailing list. The cycles of noise on the main IETF list about some other mailing lists would be helped by this policy. Besides squelching a lot of the noise by making the moderation obviously justified, it might also satisfy those who really want their words published. An easy way to implement such a policy is to use the usual mailing list software to create parallel "lists" which to not allow subscriptions or contributions except from the moderator of the main list but that has an open archive. The moderator could send copies of any rejected documents and any relevant coorespondence to the parallel "list." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 20:12:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09664 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H0Bup18418 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:11:56 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H0Bum18415 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:11:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09635; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S42d-0000ej-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:09:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S42c-0000eg-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:09:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GLI1a05503; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:18:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GLHGm05454 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:17:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03175 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S1Jb-00070f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:14:59 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S1JZ-00070c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:14:58 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (matt@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5GLH96t002832; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:17:09 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09146; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:17:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16110.13269.186322.574882@world.std.com> To: Meng Weng Wong Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 7 In-Reply-To: <20030616161257.GF25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <20030616161257.GF25291@dumbo.pobox.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:17:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 16, 2003 at 12:12 mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) wrote: > Damian Conway: "if nothing you've tried so far has worked, try > something new." SPF counts as new. I have seen several people > criticize SPF as unworkable. I invite them to propose a specific > alternative. If they will not, then these people won't lead, and they > won't follow; they need to get out of the way. With all due respect (and it isn't much) you're heaping the bullshit just a bit too high for my tastes. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 21:18:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11689 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H1He822546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:17:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H1Hem22543 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:17:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11681; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S54F-0001FY-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:15:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S54E-0001FV-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:15:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GLG2a05411; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:16:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GLFqm05394 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:15:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03148 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S1IF-00070H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:13:35 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S1IE-00070E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:13:35 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (sparrow@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5GLFk8M008302; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:15:46 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08071; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:15:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16110.13185.940368.26010@world.std.com> To: Meng Weng Wong Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 In-Reply-To: <20030616161705.GG25291@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <20030616161705.GG25291@dumbo.pobox.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:15:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 16, 2003 at 12:17 mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com (Meng Weng Wong) wrote: > I've already thought of one response; the "throwaway domain" scenario > is addressed in the FAQ at > > http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#noprevent Oh right this is the smarmy "brushing my teeth doesn't prevent cavities" answer (along with several other, similar remarks) which struck me more like the repartee' of a used car salesman than someone who wishes to be taken seriously. One problem, as I see it, are the ever increasing number of zomboid thrall servers; PC's with viruses which turn them into spam delivery slaves. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 22:23:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13181 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H2McY26796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:22:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H2Mbm26791 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:22:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13158; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S655-0001fW-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:20:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S655-0001fT-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:20:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (a.mx.viagraonlinenow.biz [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GIn2a26353; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:49:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GImMm26312 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:48:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25159 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RyzU-00059O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:46:05 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RyzT-000592-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:46:03 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A1236A70062; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:49:07 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:52:41 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Thread-Index: AcMzWDQYt8UJ4DkmRw2fZ6wOfJ0n7wA3ySoA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Alan DeKok" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5GImNm26315 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:47:49 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alan, Let me refine what I said: discussions on whether a given idea is patentable or not, or whether a patent holder has a right to a given patent, are not productive to this list because those questions are best answered by those skilled in the art/science of patent filing. With that, my responses are: > > "Peter Kay" wrote: > > I think those type of comments and questions about what is > patentable > > or not are unproductive to this list, > > Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be > explicitely on-topic for this list. > I agree. > > Unless you're a seasoned patent attorney, patent examiner, > or one that > > has submitted several patents and gone through the > examination process > > many times, all one can offer is something less than a "armchair > > quarterback" opinion that will typically lead to even more guessing > > and we'll end up getting excited over nothing. > > So people with experience in a technical field are > unqualified to discuss technology in their field, as soon as > the magic word "patent" appears. No. But techncal people do not have the knowledge to productively discuss the legality and/or enforecability of a patent. > However, people > knowledgable in the areas of patents are qualified to discuss > technology in *other* peoples fields, even when those > patent-people are manifestly untrained, and inexperienced in > those fields. > No. Those skilled in patents can tell you about the patent but probably can't describe the underlying technology that is contained within the patent. > > Asking technical people for their opinions on the patent process is > > like asking laypeople to comment on complex software architecture: > > you'll get comments that are completely out of scope and > wildly incorrect. > > Asking technical people for their opinions of the TECHNICAL > MERITS of patents is always appropriate. > I agree. Technical merits, yes. Prior art, yes. Patent enforcability and/or validity, probably not. > ASRG is attempting to resolve the consent exchange issue, > for email. Patents which limit the available solutions > should be discussed. Patents which have prior art should > also be discussed. I agree. And add this: "discussions of whether a given patent is enforceable or legitimate SHOULD not be discussed". Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 16 22:42:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13594 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H2ffE28584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:41:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H2ffm28581 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:41:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13585; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:41:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S6NW-0001kq-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:39:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S6NW-0001kn-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:39:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GM52a08367; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:05:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GM4dm08332 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:04:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04990 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S23S-0007Rl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:02:22 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S23R-0007Rb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:02:21 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:04:47 -0700 At 04:33 PM 6/16/03 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:58:58AM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >> | >> | It's not like spammers can't change their behavior, they often do, and >> | this one isn't even hard to change. >> >> I agree; we must play good chess. If SPF/DMP/RMX/... goes in, what do >> you think the spammers will do next? > >spammers will switch back to empty envelope senders. >Then all people will start to block bounces. >This causes the eMail-system to become totally unreliable. > [Note - this is an opinion piece with little or no hard data.] I don't think so. First, only people who don't understand what empty envelope sender means will block them all. I'm guessing that's a majority of the end users, but not a significant fraction of the people who make the mail system work. Spam with an empty envelope isn't ever going to be effective, since most will filter it out. Also, more effective blocking of "empties" that aren't DSNs is possible. We just don't do it (yet) because there isn't much call for it. For example, only accepting a standardized bounce (i.e. one following RFC 1894) would stop most of the spam but only a tiny fraction of the real DSNs. The second round of this is spam that really looks like an RFC 1894 DSN. That leads to DSNs including tokens from the original messages. (identifiable message-ids) I don't think there's a third round - they can't go further, and the damage caused is limited to that state. So we lose some reliability (because a few real DSNs will be discarded) but we'd still have enough to keep the system mostly reliable. Does that mean I think spammers won't use empty envelopes? No. "Spammers" is not a single entity. It's possible that even single spammers will try many different approaches, but certainly as group, they will try almost everything they can think of. Thus, they won't switch to empty envelopes, they'll do empty envelopes /as well/. Or rather, some will do empty envelopes, while some will continue to forge envelopes, and some will buy dozens of new domains to spam "from". This may seem a trivial distinction, but I think it's important. We aren't facing an enemy army, with a cohesive leadership, it's more like a thousand guerrillas. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 00:15:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15954 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H4EUQ03053 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:14:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H4ENm03049 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:14:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15925; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S7pE-0002Mu-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:12:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S7pD-0002Mr-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:12:03 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H0X1a19153; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:33:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H0W6m19131 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:32:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10138 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S4M9-0000kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:29:49 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S4M7-0000kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:29:47 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5H0W1YS029474 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:32:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306170032.h5H0W1YS029474@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections References: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:32:01 -0600 (MDT) > Most objections to SPF have come from people who ... I've seen seemingly endless talk recently about the characteristics of people who don't like SPF and various bits of what I assume are deep philosophies, but nothing about what SPF is. In poking Google, I found http://spf.pobox.com/ From that page, I found this statement on the "executive summary" in http://spf.pobox.com/execsumm.html SPF is not patent-encumbered. As I understand such things, absolutely no one can flatly say that anything is not patent-encumbered. Submarine patents are always a worry even after a professional patent search. That page also says that SPF is less than 2 weeks old. How can anyone claim there are no existing patents on SPF? I thought a patent search required noticable real money and far more time than a week or two. Saying that SPF is unencumbered sounds like an unconditional and unlimited offer of indemnification should a patent surface. Are you sure you want to assume what could be many-multi-million dollar liability? In plowing through the links on http://spf.pobox.com/ I find many statements that seem obviously false to me. For example, the characterization "The Problem With STMP" seemss wrong at least about the nature and history of SMTP. And so on.... I looked at several of the links on http://spf.pobox.com/ without gaining the faintest idea of what SPF is. I found many assurances that SPF will fix spam and that realsoonnow there will be a technical specification, but few technical clues. I did find http://spf.pobox.com/dns.html which seems to involve odd notions of which characters are valid in DNS names and a reasonable notion of names that are not already in use. That page suggests (but does not seem to come out and say) that SPF is a version of what Paul Vixie wrote about years ago about Jim Miller's 1998 idea and what others have written about since but with a few trivial tweaks such as the use of TXT RRs. If that is accurate, then SPF may be based on the false notion that many (or any) major ISPs object or could be forced to object to people sending mail ossensibly from their domain names but via unrelated SMTP clients. I also looked at http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.png http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.txt http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/ and found statistical jargon but little statistical analysis, lots enthusiasm, and no technnical discussion about the nature of SPF. See https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04508.html for Paul Vixie's old vers version, not because it is wonderful, best, authoritative, final, or even particularly good, but only in the hope of defusing some of the hype. Ob.Philosophy: What is it about spam that brings out the passion to convince and convert? Or maybe it's just that recent arrivals on the DDN Protocol Suite scene are not of the old school that believed the best and only interesting sales presentations involve technical details and running code. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 06:33:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06044 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HAWcL14894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:32:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HAWbm14891 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:32:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06040; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SDjH-0004hR-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:30:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SDjG-0004hN-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:30:18 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H8L2a05049; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:21:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H8Kam05023 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:20:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03555 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SBfW-00043P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:18:18 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SBfV-00043M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:18:18 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 01:20:50 -0700 At 06:32 PM 6/16/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: [edited] >I did find http://spf.pobox.com/dns.html which seems to involve odd >notions of which characters are valid in DNS names and a reasonable >notion of names that are not already in use. > (SPF was described in http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05360.html as RMX+DMP = SPF, though it does add the rDNS idea for dealing with domains that don't have a DMP record.) There has been much debate about what characters can be in DNS. '_' is allowed by the software. The RFCs are less clear about what is allowed. At one point, '/' was a legal character, then it wasn't, then it was again. If anyone can provide a definitive answer I'd be very surprised, as far as I know there isn't a consensus. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 08:26:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09957 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HCPZA23016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:25:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HCPZm23013 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:25:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09928; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SFUb-0005UE-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:23:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SFUa-0005UB-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:23:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HAC1a14022; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:12:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HABbm14001 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:11:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05680 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SDOx-0004d4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:09:19 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SDOw-0004d1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:09:18 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19SDQr-0000kM-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:11:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030616161705.GG25291@dumbo.pobox.com> Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 To: "Meng Weng Wong" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.6] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:11:17 +0100 > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: > | > | ... some objections to SPF have come from people who > | > | 8) do not see beyond the short future that is explicitly described; > | > > > Of course spammers will react to SPF. If you can think of specific > actions they will take, let's discuss them. > > I've already thought of one response; the "throwaway domain" scenario > is addressed in the FAQ at > > http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#noprevent Doesn't this entire proposal tend to a blacklist? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 08:48:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11714 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HClrZ25028 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:47:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HClrm25025 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:47:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11657; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SFqB-0005wh-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:45:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SFqA-0005wb-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:45:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H8v1a07715; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:57:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H8uDm07650 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:56:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03986 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SCDz-0004AW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:53:55 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SCDy-0004AT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:53:54 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19SCFq-0003rQ-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:55:50 +0100 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 To: "Meng Weng Wong" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.6] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:55:50 +0100 > did you get the messages in order or out of order? the list has been Out of order. > really slow for me. did you get the original "summary" page that > listed all the objections? > Yes... finally > my reading of rfc2822 3.6.4 indicates that multiple references are > discouraged only in the special case that a message has "multiple > inheritance" from more than one thread. > And if the message doesn't have multiple parents... why have multiple references? For what it's worth the order I got was: 23:09 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objections 3 and 4 22:43 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections 22:16 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 6 22:03 Meng Weng Wong Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 21:30 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 20:52 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 7 20:24 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 20:16 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objections 1 and 2 20:02 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 5 19:33 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] SPF: Objection: spammers will use <> 18:40 Meng Weng Wong [Asrg] Re: SPF: Summary of Objections, erratum I don't believe you can count on a "fine" ordering on a list like this. Regards, jrk -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 09:06:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12666 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HD5lh25901 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:05:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HD5lm25898 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:05:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12582; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SG7V-0006EW-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:03:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SG7U-0006ET-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:03:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HBC0a18362; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:12:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HBB2m18309 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:11:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06933 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SEKR-0004wQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:08:43 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SEKQ-0004wN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:08:43 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19SEMd-0002ki-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:10:59 +0100 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.6] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] UK public inquiry on spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:10:59 +0100 http://www.apig.org.uk/press_release13th_june_2003.htm Is anyone (chair?) planning to put a written evidence into this? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 11:09:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21551 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HF97S04396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HF97m04393 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21515; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SI2p-0000UT-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:06:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SI2o-0000UQ-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:06:46 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HDa2a28363; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:36:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HDZFm28333 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14991 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SGa1-00070B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:32:57 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SGa0-000708-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:32:56 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5HDZAMh013973 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:35:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306171335.h5HDZAMh013973@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:35:10 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Jon Kyme" > ... > I don't believe you can count on a "fine" ordering on a list like this. Yes, but it doesn't help when the messages are not received in order by the exploder. My guess is that order in https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html is close to the order of the flurry of messages as they were received by Mailman. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 14:15:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29775 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HIFJJ12316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SJyk-0004DO-2U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:10:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26656; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SJwV-0001qK-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:08:23 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SJwU-0001qH-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:08:22 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HBN1a18755; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:23:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HBMZm18736 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:22:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07399 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SEVe-00052G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:20:18 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SEVd-00052D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:20:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 59696 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Jun 2003 11:22:33 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Meng Weng Wong Cc: Markus Stumpf , Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Objection: spammers will use <> Message-ID: <20030617132233.P57133@Space.Net> References: <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <20030616163347.B57133@Space.Net> <20030616162825.GF29227@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030616162825.GF29227@dumbo.pobox.com>; from mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:28:25PM -0400 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:22:33 +0200 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:28:25PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: > The original DMP I-D says, in the case of a blank envelope sender, > test using the HELO domain instead of the envelope sender domain. Wow ... how's the weather on your planet? Out of 7394 connections on one of our mailservers that is closed to customer access 6789 had non matching (the hostname) HELO arguments. Most HELO arguments are pc01 and the like. On our MX mailservers the ration is similar, but of course the are a lot of spammers that fake them, but I intentionally made the test on a non MX mailserver. So you want to force about 90% of all mailserver administrators (most of the clueless) to change the configuration of their mailserver? Have fun. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 14:15:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29799 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HIFOh12549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKcb-0001H7-IV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:51:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28088; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKaM-0002CJ-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:49:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKaL-0002CG-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:49:33 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HGQ3a11805; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:26:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HFUUm05451 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:30:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22648 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SINY-0000mi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:28:12 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SINY-0000mT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:28:12 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HFX9F02397 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:33:09 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/10) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <18932798631.20030617082953@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:29:53 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Most objections to SPF have come from people who Note that this summary does not discuss technical concerns, but simply attacks and dismisses those who raise objections. Given that ASRG is intended to conduct technical discussion and that that requires responding to technical concerns with serious, technical answers, the main objection to SPF is that so far it is not a serious technical effort. If that ever changes, it might (or might not) be worth serious consideration. However the best path, for now, is to avoid feeding a topic that is focused on dismissing criticism, rather than responding to them seriously. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 14:15:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29834 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HIFOC12593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKcy-0001IQ-SR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:52:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28140; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKaj-0002Cr-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:49:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKai-0002Co-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:49:56 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HDa3a28371; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:36:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HDZnm28345 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15053 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SGaY-00071O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:33:30 -0400 Received: from mail2.ssmb.com ([199.67.141.25] helo=imbaspam-nj03.iplex.ssmb.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SGaY-00070F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:33:30 -0400 Received: from imbarc-nj02.nj.ssmb.com (imbarc-nj02-2 [150.110.177.216]) by imbaspam-nj03.iplex.ssmb.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.20 $) with ESMTP id h5HDZFcu010393; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.205.199]) by imbarc-nj02.nj.ssmb.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h5HDZ4AA029087; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchuk13.eu.ssmb.com (imceu.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.152.113]) by mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (8.9.3-GEMSp2/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id OAA21758; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:35:02 +0100 (BST) Received: by imceu.eu.ssmb.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:33:55 +0100 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72DA49@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'Jon Kyme'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] UK public inquiry on spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:33:57 +0100 > http://www.apig.org.uk/press_release13th_june_2003.htm > > Is anyone (chair?) planning to put a written evidence into this? I'm trying to the appropriate clearance internally so that I can provide information about our (Citigroup's) anti-spam infrastructure, costs, benefits, and experiences. N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 14:15:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29835 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HIFOQ12607 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKd1-0001IY-Ao for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:52:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28146; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKal-0002D5-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:50:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKal-0002D2-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:49:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HGQ2a11794; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:26:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5FIl7m17050 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:47:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07258 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcUm-0004gV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:44:52 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RcUl-0004gS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:44:51 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.57]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5FIl2h6026452; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:47:02 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2234@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:47:01 -0700 On the contrary, prior art can be very useful if the patent is held by the right party. Most of the patents are actually in reasonably friendly hands. It is pretty easy to get a royalty free license if the other party suspects that the patent is not enforceable and has other more important business interests. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 12:11 PM > To: Alan DeKok; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > At 09:24 AM 6/15/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: > > >"Peter Kay" wrote: > > > I think those type of comments and questions about what > is patentable or > > > not are unproductive to this list, > > > > Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be > explicitely > >on-topic for this list. > > I was originally planning on tracking prior art from the list for the > document I am keeping. However, there is simply so much > information being > provided that I am rethinking the decision. However, I would > have to agree > with Alan about this: prior art discussions are practically > useless for > patents that have been already granted, since the group is > not planning on > using the prior art to challenge the patents. The only useful > utility that > may possible come from prior art is the determination of how > strong the > patent is - but then again we are not lawyers. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:02:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29893 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HIFRw12910 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:15:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKu2-0002dm-Hv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:09:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29228; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKrn-0002Vp-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKrm-0002Vm-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HBA2a18291; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:10:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HB9fm18226 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:09:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06896 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SEJ8-0004vg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:07:22 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SEJ7-0004vc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 07:07:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 58666 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Jun 2003 11:09:37 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Scott Nelson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Message-ID: <20030617130937.O57133@Space.Net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from scott@spamwolf.com on Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:04:47PM -0700 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:09:37 +0200 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:04:47PM -0700, Scott Nelson wrote: > I don't think so. First, only people who don't understand what > empty envelope sender means will block them all. > I'm guessing that's a majority of the end users, > but not a significant fraction of the people who make the > mail system work. *lol* Have you ever been on a MTA mailing list? There are some ten messages a week "how can I block <> for MTA xyz". I see about 30-40 each day that generate double bounces because "empty senders are not allowed". > Spam with an empty envelope isn't ever going to be effective, > since most will filter it out. Also, more effective blocking > of "empties" that aren't DSNs is possible. We just don't do it > (yet) because there isn't much call for it. For example, > only accepting a standardized bounce (i.e. one following RFC 1894) > would stop most of the spam but only a tiny fraction of the real DSNs. How about all the "robots" or CR systems that send their mails with empty envelope senders, because they don't want an answer if the challenge was faked. How about all the autoresponders? There are lots of valid emails with empty envelopes. > is limited to that state. So we lose some reliability > (because a few real DSNs will be discarded) but we'd still have > enough to keep the system mostly reliable. Sorry, I don't think it's reliable if bounces get lost. Just like discarding spam qualified emails automatically is .. hmmm .. unwise, because if it's a false classification the sender has no chance to get informed what happend. At times where email is considered a trustworthy medium this is unacceptable. > This may seem a trivial distinction, but I think it's important. > We aren't facing an enemy army, with a cohesive leadership, > it's more like a thousand guerrillas. And I surely don't stop aguing that a TXT record with the contents "MAILSERVER" in reverse DNS would be much faster and easier deployed and effective than RMX or companions. And it would save us from accepting email from all the broken workstations, homecomputers, open proxies and virus infected hosts that never had been intended to be a mailserver. And I yet have to see that RMX or companions save us from the problem to order some hundred 9nerauhi3250780asd.com type domains, use short TTLs (5-10 seconds) and add RMX records for the open relays that are abused right now. The next thing surely will be that TTLs < 86400 for RMX records are forbidden ... Yeah I know, reverse DNS is lame. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:23:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05972 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJNGi11024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:23:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SL7f-0003wB-1e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:23:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00770; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SL5P-0002oL-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:21:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SL5O-0002oI-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:21:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HGT1a11963; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:29:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HGSJm11916 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:28:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25476 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SJHV-0001X9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:26:01 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SJHU-0001Wz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:26:00 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AMS50591; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIT15308; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <001901c334ed$71aa8540$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5HGSJm11917 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:28:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Gordon Peterson wrote: > A recipient should be able to create a specific-permission > "whitelist" which lists the senders (by E-mail address) to > which they wish to assign "special" privileges. Personally, I believe that this kind of approach will be much more likely to result in useful throttling of spam. It addresses the issue of "consent" that is supposed to be the focus of this research group and has the excellent benefit of being an approach that can be adopted by individuals without requiring changes to the existing infrastructure. I view the problem of "consent" as one similar to that of "licensing" or "authorization." Basically, what you want to do is grant different levels of privilege to people who might attempt to access your inbox. This can be done either be creating an explicit whitelist which is checked when mail arrives, or by providing a "license to send" to a sender which would be a digital certificate detailing their rights and could be attached to mail as it travels through the network. > [SPF, RMX and other DNS based approaches] comes at a high > (perhaps unreasonably high) cost to many types of users who > for legitimate reasons sometimes post from atypical locations The supporters of SPF, RMX, and other similar approaches appear to be well aware of these concerns yet they also appear to be relatively unmoved by them. The response to this concern is to say simply that users at "atypical locations" should be compelled to use SMTP authentication or some other means to access their normal mail servers even when at distant locations. I think that the belief that SMTP authentication is a reasonable alternative is a bit humorous... The assumption is that connectivity exists between the sending client and the users SMTP server. Admittedly, these days, with a much improved network infrastructure, this is often the case -- unlike in the old days when connectivity was *never* assumed. However, even today, connectivity cannot always be guaranteed. For instance, in the last few years, I have often found myself in places like India where from time to time it can be almost impossible to connect to a New York based SMTP server... If we end up adopting approaches that require connectivity to a "home" server, I'm afraid that we're going to have to define some additional protocol that will allow a mail to be submitted at one server, then forwarded to a home server for authentication and processing processing simply so that we can get the headers properly written. This "deferred authentication" process would be cumbersome, error-prone and would probably rely on PKI technologies. Not pleasant... > Gordon Peterson, live in Dallas. I've been active in > computer E-mail and networking longer than most It's good to see an old-timer on the list... I've only been on the net since 1979 and so appreciate the contributions of you old folk... bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:23:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06028 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:23:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJNHc11234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:23:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SLKn-00056Z-Fq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:37:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01969; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLIX-00034q-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:35:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLIX-00034n-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:35:13 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HEm1a02256; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HElim02244 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:47:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20233 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:47:41 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SHi9-0000Ab-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:45:25 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SHi8-0000AT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:45:24 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4862 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2003 07:47:06 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 17 Jun 2003 07:47:06 -0700 X-Sent: 17 Jun 2003 14:47:06 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:46:23 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:13:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:13:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...Now, about whitelists. Setting the parameters for what's acceptable from whom, sure, I'm all for that. And whitelists are good as a pre-filter filter for assuring that mail that must be delivered gets through, and whitelists improve over time. > The hard part is not defining what such a list might look like (though I would suggest that standard MIME types be the determinant) > The hard part is the maintenance of the list, and then dealing with the problem that senders are not authenticated. The issue gets stuck on this, and nobody's talking to it. Actually, that's very much a part of what I wrote about... and I suspect you didn't read my proposal very thoroughly (or else you just didn't understand it). The point being that spam is at least 3-5x bulkier, FAR more difficult to identify, and far more dangerous, if it can incorporate (1) HTML, (including clickable hotlinks, images, scripting, and so forth), (2) attachments (virtually all worms and viruses are based on attachments), and (3) base64 or other encoding. By restricting all of those features BY DEFAULT, there's only a relatively small number of senders for any given recipient who can send them mail containing those things. UNSOLICITED MAIL (and yes, we ALL get that, and many times we WANT to get it... e.g. new prospective clients, consumer feedback, etc etc) basically NEVER needs to contain those things. > The easiest rule is that anyone I've written to, can write to me. Please note that my proposal is WAY different than what you seem to be thinking it is. 1) I *absolutely* do NOT give carte blanche send permissions to just anybody that I've written to; most of my correspondents do NOT _need_ to send HTML, attachments, or encoded text message bodies (and fewer still need to send me ALL of those); 2) The stated intention of my permissions list approach is NOT to PREVENT all conceivable spam. Plain ASCII text spam containing no attachments will still get through my approach just fine. But the stuff getting through from unknown and/or unauthorized senders will: a) be [typically MUCH] smaller than HTML-burdened spam, or spam with attachments or encoding; b) not contain links and URLs which purport to be one thing but actually point somewhere else; c) not contain text-in-GIF/JPG format or scripts or other such "obscured" content that flummoxes content filters d) not contain attachments containing worms/viruses/etc. > But beyond that it gets very messy. Simplest example: I hear from a LOT of people I don't know at all, who are writing for absolutely legitimate reasons. Absolutely... a good example would be mail coming to CustomerRelations@whatever.com... you ABSOLUTELY don't anticipate who will write to you if you deal with large numbers of consumers at large. > Counter example: The new e-mail worms pull sender and recipient addresses from the same address book... my friends have received such things "from me", (that I of course didn't send). Absolutely. But note that those recipients that such worms pull from your address book are STILL of no use to the worm UNLESS you are authorized [by them!] to send those people HTML, attachments, or encoded body text... and if you're like most senders, you don't need to send that stuff to most (maybe even ALL) of the people you write to. This means that statistically, it's much less of a "sure thing" for the worm... maybe [hopefully!] to the point that the success/survival rate for such programs falls below 'critical mass' for meaningful propagation. > A whitelist would have passed them right through in every case where the names intersected, That's precisely NOT the case using my "permissions" approach, and your statement shows why I don't think you understood the implications of what I'm proposing. > and the odds of that, for any two names in a given address book, are probably pretty high... much higher than chance, anyway! With my concept, if you're not a sender of HTML/attachments/encoding to your recipients (and presuming that they don't turn those features on for senders not requiring them), then *none* of the names in your address book would be productive... not to a spammer forging your "from" address, and not to a worm or virus attempting to send itself (ActiveX/scripting/attachments/etc) to addresses pulled from your address book. NONE of those, sent either from YOUR system OR from some open relay, would end up being delivered. Again, it IS true that sending plain ASCII text spam would still go through... but with those restrictions, spam is far less pernicious and dangerous, and FAR easier for content filters like SpamAssassin to identify and deal with. Together, I think we'd nail the great majority of it. [And... it's not maybe necessary to prevent ALL of it... if the statistical 'success rate' of spamming drops low 'enough' then maybe spammers will find it simply not worth it.] Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:24:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06171 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJNbl11691 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:23:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SLpC-00082j-Uv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:08:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04211; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLmw-0003YU-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:06:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLmw-0003YR-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:06:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKw5-0002im-DN; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SJV3-0003TH-NU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:40:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25853 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SJSp-0001eD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:37:43 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SJSo-0001dQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:37:42 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5HGgeF06474 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:42:40 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/10) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <7736966695.20030617093922@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:39:22 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Most objections to SPF have come from people who Note that this summary does not discuss technical concerns, but simply attacks and dismisses those who raise objections. Given that ASRG is intended to conduct technical discussion and that that requires responding to technical concerns with serious, technical answers, the main objection to SPF is that so far it is not a serious technical effort. If that ever changes, it might (or might not) be worth serious consideration. However the best path, for now, is to avoid feeding a topic that is focused on dismissing criticism, rather than responding to them seriously. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:41:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06886 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJedX16397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:40:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SLs2-0000hD-G9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:11:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04696; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:11:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLpm-0003cn-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:09:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLpl-0003ck-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:09:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SL03-0003SL-Rs; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:16:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKBA-0000OV-Kt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:23:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27303 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:23:28 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SK8v-000202-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:21:13 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SK8u-0001zy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:21:12 -0400 Received: (cpmta 9933 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2003 10:23:28 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 17 Jun 2003 10:23:28 -0700 X-Sent: 17 Jun 2003 17:23:28 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:23:14 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:50:10 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:50:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> A recipient should be able to create a specific-permission > "whitelist" which lists the senders (by E-mail address) to > which they wish to assign "special" privileges. > Personally, I believe that this kind of approach will be much more likely to result in useful throttling of spam. Thanks! Obviously, I agree. In particular, when you actually look at the spam (and viruses, and worms) going through the Net, the *great* majority of it is pernicious (and hard to filter) due to various tricks generally exploiting HTML, encoded text, and attachments. It's notable, I think, that very little LEGITIMATE E-mail content (and relatively few senders) need to send E-mail containing those types of content. In my case, I would probably enable less than 10-15% of my correspondents to send me that type of stuff. Once spammers realize that sending HTML of any kind is the "kiss of death" regarding deliverability of their crap, they'll either stop using it or else at least they'll cease to be much of a problem for recipients whose ISP uses a "permissions system" like I'm proposing. And once these key "obscuring/cloaking" technologies are denied to spammers, stuff like SpamAssassin or other content filters ought to pretty readily quash much of the remainder. Remember, we don't have to eliminate ALL spam. We only need to reduce its viability below the break-even point where it's profitable and thus appealing to would-be spammers. Then they'll simply go off and do some other line of work instead... And note that it's not just spam that my approach puts a major dent in... it also puts a major crimp in viruses and worms, too, since nearly all of those depend either on HTML and/or attachments. Those types of E-mails (from unknown senders) would ALL be t-canned, and even stuff like that from KNOWN senders would _usually_ be t-canned... making these nuisances FAR less virulent. > It addresses the issue of "consent" that is supposed to be the focus of this research group and has the excellent benefit of being an approach that can be adopted by individuals without requiring changes to the existing infrastructure. Absolutely. No global consensus is required, no global re-engineering of the DNS or E-mail or other systems. It is implementable incrementally on as little as a single-ISP basis (even on a single-RECIPIENT basis, for that matter) and the benefits to those thus protected would be felt IMMEDIATELY. Even those who are NOT directly protected by such a permissions-based system would still benefit once spammers wise up and stop using HTML or attachments for their outgoing junk. > I view the problem of "consent" as one similar to that of "licensing" or "authorization." Basically, what you want to do is grant different levels of privilege to people who might attempt to access your inbox. Exactly. But (and this is important) I don't think you must (or should!) tell users what their privilege level might be. (For example, I don't want spammers going through their list of harvested addresses and querying to find out which ones allow them (*or, for that matter, certain well-known and widely used sender addresses*!) to send that recipient HTML or attachments...) I think it's better for those things to simply disappear down a black hole without a trace (at least not visible to anybody other than, perhaps, the intended recipient...) > This can be done either be creating an explicit whitelist which is checked when mail arrives, or by providing a "license to send" to a sender which would be a digital certificate detailing their rights and could be attached to mail as it travels through the network. I don't think that senders ought to be told what their permissions level is. They should simply send ALL mail in the compact, non-HTML-burdened format since that format WOULD get through permissions-based approaches like mine. Those who absolutely need to send HTML, attachments, or encoded text simply must arrange in advance with their intended recipients to enable such receipt from that sender. >> [SPF, RMX and other DNS based approaches] comes at a high > (perhaps unreasonably high) cost to many types of users who > for legitimate reasons sometimes post from atypical locations > The supporters of SPF, RMX, and other similar approaches appear to be well aware of these concerns yet they also appear to be relatively unmoved by them. Absolutely, and that alarms me too. They seem to want to press forward, even knowing upfront that their approach leads to a brick wall down the path for many legitimate users. > The response to this concern is to say simply that users at "atypical locations" should be compelled to use SMTP authentication or some other means to access their normal mail servers even when at distant locations. That's simply not an option for users sending mail from kiosks at airport waiting lounges, public access terminals at public libraries, or at Internet cafes (including, for example, those onboard cruise ships). The other problem with the whole spf-type thing is that (despite the costs and problems) it REALLY doesn't do much in the end to solve the spam problem. It complicates the entire global DNS and E-mail systems and doesn't really prevent the sending of spam (nor does it do much to solve the bandwidth or obscuring techniques that spammers use). It only "qualifies" the sender, and in fact it doesn't even really do that (since again, it would "approve" spammers as long as they counterfeited an address from any other sender of their same (possibly HUGE!) domain...). Even basing it on a SINGLE ISP wouldn't correctly identify a fraudulent sender if (for instance) they saw a user sending from a public library Internet terminal (with SPF authorization), then sat down at the same terminal and fraudulently used the same "from" address from the exact same IP address. (Sorta the same reason why cookies are such a braindead way to try to track Web site permissions and usage...) > I think that the belief that SMTP authentication is a reasonable alternative is a bit humorous... The assumption is that connectivity exists between the sending client and the users SMTP server. It MIGHT, but it certainly doesn't always. Some ISPs, in particular, simply don't allow their users to connect to any off-local-net SMTP servers. Even if they COULD connect, it's NOT true that users at public-access terminals have much[/any!] choice of how those E-mail client softwares are configured, or what SMTP server they'll use. > Admittedly, these days, with a much improved network infrastructure, this is often the case -- unlike in the old days when connectivity was *never* assumed. However, even today, connectivity cannot always be guaranteed. Good example would be onboard a cruise ship or drilling rig or something where (at about $7-10/minute) they cannot be assumed to have 24/7 connectivity. ;-) > For instance, in the last few years, I have often found myself in places like India where from time to time it can be almost impossible to connect to a New York based SMTP server... Same was true when about a year and a half ago I spent a week in Beijing. And you can FORGET about trying to ask the local admin (there, folks at the post office where the Internet terminals were located) to set up a special alternative mail server setup for you. It's hard enough given the language and habit barriers to just get your keyboard back to English. :-) > If we end up adopting approaches that require connectivity to a "home" server, I'm afraid that we're going to have to define some additional protocol that will allow a mail to be submitted at one server, then forwarded to a home server for authentication and processing processing simply so that we can get the headers properly written. This "deferred authentication" process would be cumbersome, error-prone and would probably rely on PKI technologies. Not pleasant... I think we can make something that's VERY much simpler, and still quite successful enough to push the viability rate for spamming (maybe even viruses and worms) below the threshhold where it is an appealing method for abusers. >> Gordon Peterson, live in Dallas. I've been active in > computer E-mail and networking longer than most > It's good to see an old-timer on the list... I've only been on the net since 1979 and so appreciate the contributions of you old folk... Thanks :-) although you were one of the earlier adopters yourself, from the sounds of things. :-)) Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:41:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06999 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJemY17519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:40:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SLxO-0001gg-8K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:17:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05427; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLvA-0003jh-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:15:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLv9-0003je-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:15:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SL07-0003VK-C6; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:16:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKZH-0000uC-Ns for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:48:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27903 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKX2-00028u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:46:08 -0400 Received: from 000-253-415.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.229.178] helo=68.27.229.178) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKWz-00028r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:46:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030617134745.00bb91f0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Jon Kyme" , "ASRG" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] UK public inquiry on spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:47:46 -0400 At 12:10 PM 6/17/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: >http://www.apig.org.uk/press_release13th_june_2003.htm > >Is anyone (chair?) planning to put a written evidence into this? "To launch its work on spam, APIG is hosting a "Spam Summit" in Westminster on 1st July 2003. Due to limited space, attendance at the Summit will be by invitation only. For further information on the Spam Summit please email spamsummit@gbc.co.uk" "Written evidence should be submitted to inquiry@apig.org.uk by 25th June 2003. APIG may, at its discretion, ask for oral evidence from witnesses on 3rd July and 10th July at the House of Commons. The inquiry's report is expected to be published in the autumn." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:41:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07044 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJeoD17846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:40:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SM25-0002bX-Bl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:22:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05777; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLzr-0003ot-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:19:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLzq-0003oq-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:19:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SL0A-0003We-90; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:16:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SKvR-0002hI-A2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:11:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29378 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:11:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKtB-0002YB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:09:01 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SKtA-0002XQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:09:00 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:11:19 -0700 At 01:09 PM 6/17/03 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: [heavily edited] >And I surely don't stop aguing that a TXT record with the contents >"MAILSERVER" in reverse DNS would be much faster and easier deployed >and effective than RMX or companions. And it would save us from >accepting email from all the broken workstations, homecomputers, open >proxies and virus infected hosts that never had been intended to be a >mailserver. > ... >Yeah I know, reverse DNS is lame. > Maybe, but it still might be the best alternative. I'm assuming when you say "in reverse DNS" you mean look up .in-addr.arpa get the TXT record for that A record, and check if it's "MAILSERVER". If so, then it doesn't address the same problem that RMX/SPF/DMP et al addresses. Not that that's bad, just an observation. I think I'd go a little further and have the record say "MAILSERVER=YES" or "MAILSERVER=NO". A tiny bit more information, and RFC 1464 compliance. Seems to me that it until very wide adoption occurred, it would only be useful for identifying IPs that may send mail, and no good for identifying IPs that can't. Does anybody currently maintain a white list of IPs that are outbound mail servers? Combining the two might make a very good system. >And I yet have to see that RMX or companions save us from the problem >to order some hundred 9nerauhi3250780asd.com type domains, use short >TTLs (5-10 seconds) and add RMX records for the open relays that are >abused right now. The next thing surely will be that TTLs < 86400 for >RMX records are forbidden ... > Yep, RMX isn't a be all, end all solution. It only addresses the problem of forgery, and not as well as other alternatives IMO. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 15:44:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07411 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HJhpF21138 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:43:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SMMx-0005Ur-0p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:43:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07357; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SMKi-00049X-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:41:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SMKi-00049U-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:41:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SM3o-00036L-81; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SLCo-0004CP-5C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:29:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01348 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLAY-0002yE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:26:58 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLAX-0002yB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:26:57 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:29:13 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Scott Nelson , asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20030617182913.GA26056@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030617130937.O57133@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030617130937.O57133@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: [Asrg] Reverse DNS requirement Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:29:13 -0500 On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:09:37PM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: . . . > And I surely don't stop aguing that a TXT record with the contents > "MAILSERVER" in reverse DNS would be much faster and easier deployed > and effective than RMX or companions. And it would save us from > accepting email from all the broken workstations, homecomputers, open > proxies and virus infected hosts that never had been intended to be a > mailserver. Amen! This is similar to what we'd like to see. We are presently requiring reverse DNS for IP addresses of MTA's which connect to our MX (with exceptions, which are dwindling). This has nothing to do with the MAIL FROM domain, it simply means that if you connect to us, your IP address must have a name, and that name must map back to your IP address. What you suggest above is exactly the sort of next step we're looking for; namely, a DNS RR which tells the world that a particular host name has been designated as an MTA (outgoing at least). I would suggest something like: myhost.mydomain.com. MTA "abuse@mydomain.com" This also requires you to specify an abuse address for that MTA. Since this does introduce another RR, a TXT record could be recognized as well: myhost.mydomain.com. TXT "MTA:abuse@mydomain.com" Unlike other proposals, this one does not relate the MAIL FROM domain with the connecting IP or the HELO line. It simply states that the host name in question is in fact intended to be an MTA. Reverse DNS, when applied to vast portions of the Internet, has allowed us to cut down on spam signifigantly. The key to implementing this for us was the ability to include a URL in SMTP 550 error messages directing the user to a web site explaining why they were blocked and how to resolve. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 16:06:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08425 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HK5m926296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SMSB-0006IC-SO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:49:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07711; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SMPx-0004FG-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:46:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SMPw-0004FD-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:46:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SMKF-0004s1-Nv; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:41:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SM1X-0002Wa-R2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:21:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05738 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLzJ-0003oY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:19:25 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SLzI-0003oV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:19:24 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5HJLd15025117 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:21:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306171921.h5HJLd15025117@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:21:39 -0600 (MDT) > From: gep2@terabites.com > ... > The point being that spam is at least 3-5x bulkier, FAR more difficult to > identify, and far more dangerous, if it can incorporate (1) HTML, (including > clickable hotlinks, images, scripting, and so forth), (2) attachments (virtually > all worms and viruses are based on attachments), and (3) base64 or other > encoding. ... I can sympathize with (1 and can almost agree with (2), but (3) is wrong. Base64 and quoted-printable encoding do not increase the size of mail by much. They themselves carry no risks of nasty content. Finally, they provide no cover for the nasty stuff except from naive, simplistic, and broken-by design filters and other defenses. All reasonable filters decode Base64, Quoted-Printable, and even HTML &-numeric and &-name character references. %-decoding is also straightforward and on its way to being de facto standard for filters that are not practically useless toys. > relatively small number of senders for any given recipient who can send them > mail containing those things. ... If not today then soon most users of email have only the alternatives of receiving mail in languages and character sets they don't understand or receiving mail encoded with Base64 or quoted-printable mail. That I use a 20 year-old MUA that cannot encode Base64 or QP at all, cannot decode QP at all, and cannot really decode Base64, and that I receive legitimate encoded mail about once a month is irrelevant. That I must start special systems and copy files among them to send encoded documents that other people demand matters to no one except me. My situation and preferences and the situations and preferences of old farts like me are irrelevant to the vast majority of users and so irrelevant here. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 17 17:20:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12135 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5HLKJj11840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:20:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SNsJ-00034t-Kx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:20:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12125; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SNq4-0005Ho-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SNq3-0005Hl-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:17:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SNs1-00031O-PW; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SNra-00030B-AZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:19:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12120 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:19:31 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SNpK-0005Hg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:17:14 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SNpK-0005Hd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:17:14 -0400 Received: (cpmta 12161 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2003 14:19:29 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 17 Jun 2003 14:19:29 -0700 X-Sent: 17 Jun 2003 21:19:29 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:18:22 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:45:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] SPF and other spam approaches Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:45:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm going to combine responses to several related posts from the last digest. > ...SPF avoids the quicksand of definition entirely. SPF is merely an *extension* of SMTP which *closes a security hole*; Well, I think that "closes" is rather misleading. It shrinks it, but doesn't really close it in any positive, meaningful way. If it really were the single, unobstructive 'silver bullet' that everyone seems to want, its numerous problems might be more tolerable. > it improves the veracity of sender addresses among consenting hosts. "Improves", yes, but not by ENOUGH that globally one can act in a positive way on the conclusion. Yes, it can indicate that a given message, IF it comes from the indicated sender, was sent from an 'atypical' originating domain for that sender. The problem is that that could happen QUITE LEGITIMATELY. Also, the fact that a forging spammer could with TOTAL impunity still impersonate the victimized From: address, as long as they're able to send from within the same range of IP addresses (which is fairly easy if it's a big ISP domain, like "swbell.net", which might have literally millions of subscribers and IP addresses). Similarly, spam from legitimate (but throwaway) E-mail accounts is likewise unaffected... yeah, the sender is exactly who they say they are, "bogus@freeisp.com". And they really do reside at 123 Nosuch Street, I'm sure... > It also fights worms and viruses; No, it really doesn't. As long as they are sent from "legitimate" senders and through their configured SMTP servers, they'll go out just fine. > ...it also fights forgery. It DOES detect (but not eliminate) many (but not all) kinds of forgeries. Unfortunately, that comes at the cost of hugely inconveniencing (or making it impossible) for many legitimate, honest E-mail users to continue using their Internet services the way they always have been able to do. Because of that simple fact, it's not clear that 'detecting' a possible/likely From: address forgery (according to spf) allows an ISP to really do much about that. > Right now lots of our customers misconfigure their home machines as pobox.com, and send bounce messages using From: postmaster@pobox.com. The double-bounces end up in my mailbox. SPF helps solve this problem also. If SPF works against spam, what a happy coincidence! >| ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 3) conclude that because technical solutions have not solved spam in | the past, they cannot possibly solve spam in the future; this is | the "spam is ultimately a social / economic / legal problem" camp; | | 4) observe that no single solution is perfect, and fall into despair; > (3) is an objection unique to pessimists. We technical types, being professional practitioners of pessimism, must be especially wary. We have nothing to lose by trying a new approach. If that were true, then testing the approach would make more sense. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems I foresee that SPF does not address or resolve. Meanwhile, it ignores the legitimate if inconvenient needs and requirements of a fair number of honest/legitimate users. The (potentially large) costs to those ignored users don't seem to concern the spf folks very much. > Optimism in this case is more productive than pessimism. Optimism is fine when there are no visible, obvious problems with a given approach. When there ARE problems that are plainly obvious in advance, then forging ahead regardless smacks less of "optimism" and more of "denial". > (4) is a problem for those who are both pessimists and perfectionists. An 80% solution that works is better than a 100% solution that doesn't exist. I certainly agree. The "permissions" system I propose doesn't purport to eliminate spam; what it DOES do is to block a LARGE percentage of it, to make the stuff that DOES get through smaller and less costly, and easier for content filters like SpamAssassin to deal with. What's more, my approach is incrementally and independently implementable at the individual ISP level (or even, with less benefit, at the individual end user level!) and doesn't require reaching any kind of global technology consensus or re-engineering of basic Internet systems architecture in order to achieve HUGE and immediate, direct benefits. > Spam costs ISPs money; they are looking for answers today. Absolutely. Another reason why spf, IMHO, is NOT the answer. > Forwarding systems and kiosks can easily achieve SPF compliance by using a sender rewriting scheme (SRS); I am developing a simple I-D to describe one possible SRS. Yes, but the mere fact that you're expecting EVERY sender WORLDWIDE to change their systems to comply with your suggested standard, to me, is pretty outrageous. It's just NOT likely to happen. > ...The pain of a world where SMTP permits forgery, anonymity, and spam is greater to me than the pain of a world where SASL+SMTP+SPF require authenticated logins to home servers. Yes, but the notable part of your contention is "to ME" [emphasis mine]. Unfortunately, you don't seem to take the legitimate needs of users into much account where other people's answer to that question might be different. > I expect leading ISPs to act for the majority of their users, Depends entirely on what the agreements are that they have with their users. For them to make a voluntary change which blows some (even small) percentage of those (legitimate, honest, reasonable) users out of the water could represent "breach of contract" and subject the ISP to legal liability. > ...and I expect the majority of the users to agree with me. Individual rights, to be meaningful, doesn't just mean the right to take popular, majority positions. The right to free speech doesn't mean much if it only means you have the right to say stuff that nobody else finds objectionable. Now, I am *not* saying that spammers have the unassailable right to shovel their fraudulent, misrepresented, and sometimes lurid garbage indiscriminately into the E-mail inboxes of children, or even other adults. But one CAN'T just ignore the needs and legitimate rights of minorities. > SPF tries to cushion the blow to those with fragile eggs by providing the mechanism of Sender Rewriting and by advocating SASL. For spf to be "mostly useful", it must be adhered to by a large percentage of ISPs worldwide. Frankly, I don't honestly expect to see that happen. > Damian Conway: "if nothing you've tried so far has worked, try something new." SPF counts as new. So do any of a number of other ideas, some of which seem to have a much lower cost and a much higher probability of immediate payback... and which don't have a visible brick wall a little further down the path. > I have seen several people criticize SPF as unworkable. I don't accuse SPF as being "unworkable". I do however feel that it is logistically improbable, doesn't really solve the problems it's purported to solve, and may create more problems (and problems even more intractable, perhaps) than those it DOES solve. > I invite them to propose a specific alternative. I have done exactly that. My problem attacks the spam/virus/worm problems from a different perspective, but is more readily implementable and comes at essentially ZERO cost or inconvenience for the GREAT majority of legitimate E-mail users... (those who send plain ASCII text E-mails, without HTML-burdening, attachments, or encoded text). It allows receipt of unexpected E-mails from previously unknown correspondents, but forces those to be in a more compact and efficient form that is readily processed by better-conceived content filters. Note that my proposed solution would block the majority of today's spam, shrink the average size of tomorrow's spam, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of content filters, and would almost totally eliminate virus and worm and trojan threats for the great majority of users. And it would do that with almost no impact on most E-mail users... and without requiring ANY global technological consensus. > If they will not, then these people won't lead, and they won't follow; they need to get out of the way. Hopefully you won't try to put me into that class. :-) > I've already thought of one response; the "throwaway domain" scenario is addressed in the FAQ at > http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#noprevent Addresses those points, yes.... unfortunately though there are a LOT of holes and glib presumptions in those "answers" that just don't hold much water in the end analysis. >| ...some objections to SPF have come from people who | | 9) prefer a different approach; | > This is a perfectly respectable objection. In this war on spam we can use as many weapons as we can get. SPF actually does relatively little to prevent or dissuade spam. Unfortunately, it is FAR more effective at preventing (even legitimately) anonymized E-mail... such as E-mails dealing with politically, professionally, or personally sensitive subjects (e.g. "whistle blowing" or commentary from within a repressive regime). > We don't have to pick just one solution; they can work together. On that point we very much agree. I see my sender/recipient permissions list as working hand-in-hand with content filters such as SpamAsssassin to produce a HUGE reduction in spam/virus/worm/trojan message volume, bulk, bandwidth, and fraud/mischief potential. > It's time to review the proposals and unite behind the best ones. That suggests an either/or approach, and the desire at some point to stop listening to new approaches and ideas. I don't think that's a good plan. > If you evaluate the proposals along the dimensions of scalability, backward-compatibility, transparency, level of inconvenience to users, universal applicability, implementation timeframe, and cost of new code and configuration, SPF comes out near the head of the pack. I disagree. I find that SPF requires a global concurrence that we're unlikely to achieve. SPF expects that eventually nearly all MTAs will become spf-compliant; those that do not comply end up being a sore, sticking point essentially forever. SPF blows some users depending on personal domains straight out of the water. SPF creates major problems for public-access E-mail terminals (kiosks, internet cafes, cruise ships, airport waiting lounges, etc). While SPF offers some evidence of possible/likely forged domain, basically NONE of the results it gives are 100% sure. The existence of ONE noncompliant MTA (or open mail relay) within a large domain (say swbell.net) means that anyone using that domain for outgoing E-mail can impersonate any other sender with an address within that domain, and SPF will indicate that (as far as it's concerned) the From: address is perhaps[/likely] not forged. Even if ISPs concur on SPF essentials, it would take YEARS to achieve widespread compliance (and even then, the spam problem still isn't really solved). > One problem, as I see it, are the ever increasing number of zomboid thrall servers; PC's with viruses which turn them into spam delivery slaves. To begin with, there are all manner of potential "denial of service attacks" and not all of them involve E-mail or spam. That said, blocking E-mails containing scripting, ActiveX, HTML, and attachments from anyone not AUTHORIZED SPECIFICALLY to send such stuff to a given recipient will go a LONG way towards reducing the ability so sneak such stuff into an unwary user's machine. > "Spammers" is not a single entity. It's possible that even single spammers will try many different approaches, but certainly as group, they will try almost everything they can think of. Thus, they won't switch to empty envelopes, they'll do empty envelopes /as well/. Or rather, some will do empty envelopes, while some will continue to forge envelopes, and some will buy dozens of new domains to spam "from". If those new domains are unable to get HTML-burdened E-mail, or attachments, or image/hypertext links, or scripting, or encoded text, through to users... then their ability to deceive and defraud while cloaking their actions are SEVERELY damaged. Cleaning up the residual using content filters ought to mop up a sizeable percentage of whatever is left. > I've seen seemingly endless talk recently about the characteristics of people who don't like SPF and various bits of what I assume are deep philosophies, but nothing about what SPF is. Essentially, SPF is a way using DNS to allow a MTA to query for a given E-mail (sender) address to find out which IP addresses that E-mail address is "authorized" to send from. The idea is to detect obvious (the most egregious, anyhow) cases of From: address forgeries. What one can actually DO with that information, once determined, is a lot less obvious than might originally appear. > ...SPF may be based on the false notion that many (or any) major ISPs object or could be forced to object to people sending mail ossensibly from their domain names but via unrelated SMTP clients. And that, indeed, is one of the big problems (IMHO) with SPF. >> Spam with an empty envelope isn't ever going to be effective, > since most will filter it out. My "permissions" approach would (by default) t-can any incoming E-mail with a blank sender, IF it contained HTML, scripting, attachments, or encoding... although the individual recipient could easily set a "blank sender" to allow those IF they wanted to allow it. > How about all the "robots" or CR systems that send their mails with empty envelope senders, because they don't want an answer if the challenge was faked. How about all the autoresponders? There are lots of valid emails with empty envelopes. Sure, but vanishingly small numbers of those advisories need to send HTML or attachments. > Sorry, I don't think it's reliable if bounces get lost. Just like discarding spam qualified emails automatically is .. hmmm .. unwise, because if it's a false classification the sender has no chance to get informed what happend. At times where email is considered a trustworthy medium this is unacceptable. Note that the rules for discarding HTML, attachments, and encoding as proposed in my permission-list system are at least intended to be unequivocal and don't require statistical interpretation. Unknown mail senders sending attachments or HTML or encoded text bodies are refused/bounced/trashed, period. I agree fully that content filters like SpamAssassin can occasionally generate false positives, so those SHOULD use a different, and more auditable, mechanism (possibly redirecting such suspect messages to screenname-spam@userdomain.com or some such.) > So you want to force about 90% of all mailserver administrators (most of the clueless) to change the configuration of their mailserver? Have fun. Exactly... A lot of these folks are not going to make these changes, or will make them wrong. I like approaches much better that don't require global change, or global consensus. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 13:13:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16724 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5IHCbN13692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:12:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SfjU-0001V6-9f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:24:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15024; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SfhD-0006Po-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:22:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SfhC-0006Pk-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Seze-0007b4-5J; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:37:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SeYl-0006Ni-Cr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:09:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11563 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SeWT-0005aY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:06:54 -0400 Received: from [63.210.22.4] (helo=relay.purespeed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SeWT-0005aT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:06:53 -0400 Received: from purespeed.com (mail.purespeed.com [63.210.23.8]) by relay.purespeed.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id D514F1815E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from HOMEY [68.100.19.197] by purespeed.com (SMTPD32-7.13) id A07F6710296; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:08:47 -0400 From: "Eric Dean" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <20030616160418.GA25291@dumbo.pobox.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Increase in spoofed spam using bogus sender Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:11:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have seen a rather dramatic increase in the amount of spam coming from spoofed senders using bogus email addresses. About 3% of the total email (including valid email) that makes it through our front-line that filters out bogus-domains..HELO..whatever winds up getting filtered due to a bogus sender based upon an SMTP reject from the challenge message. I'm wondering if the increased threat of litgation by companies such as Microsoft, AOl, Yahoo...are forcing spammers to further anonymize themselves. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 14:46:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20733 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5IIkAo30880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:46:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ShXB-0006pv-VU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:19:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19737; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:19:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ShUu-0007fr-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:17:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ShUt-0007fo-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:17:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sh8E-0005Ym-3P; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:54:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sgkf-0004AJ-Id for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:29:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17406 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:29:37 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SgiO-00071p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:27:20 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SgiN-00071k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:27:19 -0400 Received: (cpmta 10149 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 10:29:36 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 10:29:36 -0700 X-Sent: 18 Jun 2003 17:29:36 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:29:05 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:56:04 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Reverse DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:56:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We are presently requiring reverse DNS for IP addresses of MTA's which connect to our MX (with exceptions, which are dwindling). This has nothing to do with the MAIL FROM domain, it simply means that if you connect to us, your IP address must have a name, and that name must map back to your IP address. What you suggest above is exactly the sort of next step we're looking for; namely, a DNS RR which tells the world that a particular host name has been designated as an MTA (outgoing at least). There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who presently run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not all (valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP addresses. Likewise, since I have a "residential" type high speed connection, I have *very* limited abilities (and that only because of my own domain names, but I don't have my own Net-accessible DNS server in any case) to manipulate the DNS records associated with those domains. I suspect that a fair number of other consultant-type users are in a similar boat to myself on points like this. It's the needs of some of us 'advanced/small' users which the spf folks seem willing to totally ignore. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 16:27:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27889 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5IKQvC16958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:26:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SjSF-00049a-2m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:22:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27641; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SjPy-0001au-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:20:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SjPx-0001ar-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:20:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sj5B-0003E3-SF; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SizD-0002vt-MF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:52:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25913 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Siwx-00019t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:50:31 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Siww-00019q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:50:30 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:52:49 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Reverse DNS Message-ID: <20030618195249.GA2063@earth.tc.umn.edu> Reply-To: mailadm@umn.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:52:49 -0500 On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:56:04PM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > We are presently > requiring reverse DNS for IP addresses of MTA's which connect to our MX > (with exceptions, which are dwindling). This has nothing to do with the > MAIL FROM domain, it simply means that if you connect to us, your IP address > must have a name, and that name must map back to your IP address. What you > suggest above is exactly the sort of next step we're looking for; namely, > a DNS RR which tells the world that a particular host name has been designated > as an MTA (outgoing at least). > > There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who presently > run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not all > (valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP addresses. We do not allow connections from dynamic IP addresses. There is simply no way to account for unauthenticated email (that is what we're talking about here) without at least tying the messages to a fixed IP address. Of course our users can let specific addresses through such a block based on a request by the remote user (via URL). > Likewise, since I have a "residential" type high speed connection, I have *very* > limited abilities (and that only because of my own domain names, but I don't > have my own Net-accessible DNS server in any case) to manipulate the DNS records > associated with those domains. If you want to be an MTA, we feel you should be registered as one in DNS. You don't even need the registered name to be in your domain, it simply needs to map to a name which then maps back to the original IP address. Without this, bad users in a dynamic IP range cannot be blocked individually. > I suspect that a fair number of other consultant-type users are in a similar > boat to myself on points like this. It's the needs of some of us > 'advanced/small' users which the spf folks seem willing to totally ignore. In today's spam-ful world, something has to give. Sites need an incentive to tighten up controls and this is simply one more "tool" that can be used. Even AOL has become more restrictive: # telnet mailin-01.mx.aol.com 25 Trying 64.12.137.89... Connected to mailin-01.mx.aol.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220-rly-xg02.mx.aol.com ESMTP mail_relay_in-xg2.7; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:52:07 -0400 220-America Online (AOL) and its affiliated companies do not 220- authorize the use of its proprietary computers and computer 220- networks to accept, transmit, or distribute unsolicited bulk 220- e-mail sent from the internet. Effective immediately: AOL 220- may no longer accept connections from IP addresses which 220 have no reverse-DNS (PTR record) assigned. > Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ > 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! > Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ > 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". > 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 17:03:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29990 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5IL3MG23791 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:03:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sk3J-0005yf-4K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:01:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29697; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sk12-00029v-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:58:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sk11-00029s-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:58:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sjqb-0005Pg-6M; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SjjQ-00051I-8X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:40:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28790 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sjh9-0001uW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:38:15 -0400 Received: from [64.202.165.32] (helo=stgspamfilter2.secureserver.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sjh8-0001tI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:38:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 25845 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jun 2003 20:40:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20030618204006.25844.qmail@stgspamfilter2.secureserver.net> From: Jason Steiner Subject: RE: [Asrg] Reverse DNS To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:40:06 -0700 From: gep2@terabites.com > > There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who > presently run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not > all (valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP > addresses. As of this week, Cox in Phoenix (possibly nationwide) is blocking all outgoing port 25 connections from its DHCP pools. This has caused some consternation in local discussion groups, but if those users are as advanced as you claim, they should be able to smarthost through Cox's SMTP servers, or just pay the extra money for a business connection with a static IP. I've chosen the latter. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 17:53:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01479 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5ILqZN32355 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:52:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SkqD-0008IZ-Mi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:51:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01430; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sknw-0002fC-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:49:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sknv-0002f9-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:49:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Skc1-0007YZ-Vq; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SkXJ-0007K8-Ux for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:32:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01028 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SkV2-0002XY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:29:48 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SkV2-0002X7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:29:48 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B6A3232D8; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:31:31 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Reverse DNS Message-ID: <20030618213131.GC12893@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:31:31 +0100 On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:56:04PM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who presently > run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not all > (valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP addresses. If you have dynamic IP addresses, why run your own MTA? It's no use for incoming mail, and for outgoing mail you could use your ISP's MTA. Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 22:48:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12183 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5J2lhx08084 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:47:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SpDM-0001FF-5k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:31:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11981; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpB3-0005O8-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:29:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpB2-0005O5-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:29:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sozx-0000rR-6N; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Soy0-0000iT-OX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:16:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11653 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovi-0005Hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:38 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovh-0005Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:38 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:17 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:16 -0400 Message-ID: <01C335E6.F5191DC0.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Eric Dean , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:33:53 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:37 AM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > So I am assuming that you will be adding extensibility requirements as part > of the requirements draft you are working on? Actually, no this is a 'requirement' for consideration of those [interoperability/extensibility] issues NOT a requirement for extensibility. -e > At 11:48 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > >This message intends to address the issue raised concerning this statement: > >'Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as > >extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own > >features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc.' > >This is a SHOULD part of the broader requirement. Sorry if that was unclear. > > I am getting back up to speed after a few days, only this message left > > to go > >;-). > >-e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 22:54:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12394 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5J2rtF08502 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:53:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SpND-0001tQ-0m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12105; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpKu-0005Q7-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:39:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpKu-0005Q4-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:39:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sozx-0000rZ-Gy; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Soy1-0000iV-94 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:16:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11658 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovj-0005I3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:39 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovi-0005Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:38 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:19 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:19 -0400 Message-ID: <01C335E6.F679E640.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "asrg@ietf.org" , Peter Kay Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:49:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Discussed below... On Sunday, June 15, 2003 1:59 PM, Yakov Shafranovich [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > At 11:08 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: > > >On Monday, June 09, 2003 2:39 PM, Yakov Shafranovich > >[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote: > >8<...>8 > > > HOWEVER, the same section states: > > > > > > "Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM > > > command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>"." > > > >A proper intepretation of that statement requires its full context. The > >intent is to prevent message looping. As such the CRI or other systems > >SHOULD ensure that specfied addresses do not violate that tenet. > > > > > > The envelope sender address of the DSN SHOULD be chosen to ensure > > that no delivery status reports will be issued in response to the DSN > > itself, and MUST be chosen so that DSNs will not generate mail loops. > > Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM > > command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>". > > > > > > > That means that C/R systems such as yours MUST support the empty return > > > path (<>). > > > >No it does not, IMO, given the full context of the requirement. > > We were considering implementing CRI within the extension framework of > DSNs. DSNs require the return path to be <>, so any system that would use > such protocol in this matter, would require <> as well. I didn't not mean > that ALL C/R systems will use it - thank you for pointing this out. I see your point, however, I would assert that a C/R or CRI DSN would not be an SMTP DSN in the framework of the RFC and that is what the RFC is referring to, I think. So if it is an SMTP DSN yes - MUST <> and use MAIL FROM. For other protocol DSNs (maybe ones that 'depend' on SMTP as the Message Transfer Protocol, but not the application semantics, e.g. CRI) then I think the first part of the language holds that an implementors "DSN SHOULD be chosen..." etc. I would add the language is maybe too specific in the RFC for the 'SMTP transaction is used to send' and should or perhaps maybe means, "when an SMTP transaction is the predicate for sending a DSN then ..." > Someone pointed out that DSNs might not be the best solution, since it is > intended to be a one-way notification, as opposed to CRI where the > challenge is intended to be responded to and there is also an issue of all > systems that do not support CRI but support DSNs. I also contacted Keith > Moore who wrote the DSN RFCs for his opinion, so we'll see how this one > will fall out. DSNs have an advantage of having an ESMTP extension defined. > In any case, we might want to take a look at the MIME type of > "multipart/report" within which DSNs operate. This MIME part might be used > for CRI, patterned after the DSNs structure. I agree and await Keith's response as well. Thanks Yakov, you are doing a great job helping to coordinate CRI research. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 18 23:42:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12395 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5J2rtT08524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:53:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SpRM-00021L-Ha for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:46:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12134; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpP4-0005Qo-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:43:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpP3-0005Ql-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:43:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sozx-0000rj-WC; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Soy2-0000ia-0u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:16:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11664 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovk-0005IH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:40 -0400 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovj-0005Hn-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:39 -0400 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:22 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:21 -0400 Message-ID: <01C335E6.F8082760.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Art Pollard'" , "Asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:55:32 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Got it. Thanks Art. -e On Sunday, June 15, 2003 6:56 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] wrote: > At 11:18 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] > >wrote: > >8<...>8 > > > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather > > > than the FROM address. > > > >A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a > >'senders' private key? > > A digital signature uses a public / private key pair and a hash (typically > SHA). Given the public key then the signature and message could be > verified. The message would be signed with the private key as it went > out. The message's header would contain: > > 1) The digital signature (generated by the public/private key pair and the > message) > 2) The public key. > > The whitelisting would occur based not on the e-mail address but on the > public key. Thus when a new message comes in, the public key would be > looked up in the whitelist to see if it is already there. If it is there, > the message can be checked with the public key and the signature to ensure > that the proper public / private key pair actually was used to sign the > message and that the message has not been altered. > > By whitelisting on the public key and not the e-mail address / > username/etc. the user can move between machines and accounts without new > challenges as long as they use the same public/private key pair to sign > their messages. > > > > Thus it would be quite possible for people to have > > > multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail > > > address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if > > > they switched ISPs. > > > >Same private key? > > Yep. > > > >8<...>8 > > > ...When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a > > > particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address. > > > >Caching of the public key? > > Yep. The public key would be cached and would be used in the whitelisting > process. > > -Art > > -- > Art Pollard > http://www.lextek.com/ > Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 13:03:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01199 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JH3EO23692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:03:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T2oc-0006A3-Ma for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:03:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01186; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T2mJ-0007Cb-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:00:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T2mJ-0007CX-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:00:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T2oO-000671-MQ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T2nj-00066c-MT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:02:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01157 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:02:15 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T2lR-0007Bx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:59:57 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T2lQ-0007Bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:59:56 -0400 Received: (cpmta 16659 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 10:02:16 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 10:02:16 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 17:02:16 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:01:39 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:28:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Reverse DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:28:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As before, I'm answering several related E-mails in one posting. > We do not allow connections from dynamic IP addresses. I think that's a bad policy. > There is simply no way to account for unauthenticated email (that is what we're talking about here) without at least tying the messages to a fixed IP address. Even once you DO, that again is closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. > Of course our users can let specific addresses through such a block based on a request by the remote user (via URL). They first have to _realize_ that their mail is getting blocked. >> Likewise, since I have a "residential" type high speed connection, I have *very* limited abilities (and that only because of my own domain names, but I don't have my own Net-accessible DNS server in any case) to manipulate the DNS records associated with those domains. > If you want to be an MTA, we feel you should be registered as one in DNS. I wouldn't particularly have a problem in principle with doing that, and I certainly have the iron here to support it (running both NT 4.0 and Win2K servers, among other machines here) but the terms of my service agreement with my ISP prohibit me from offering ANY server services visible to the Net (and that presumably includes DNS). That, combined with the fact that I don't have a fixed IP address, makes it difficult to comply. > You don't even need the registered name to be in your domain, it simply needs to map to a name which then maps back to the original IP address. Without this, bad users in a dynamic IP range cannot be blocked individually. Again, I don't have a net-accessible DNS server here, nor do I have any fixed IP addresses. > As of this week, Cox in Phoenix (possibly nationwide) is blocking all outgoing port 25 connections from its DHCP pools. Yes, and I've had [business!] clients that have been subjected to just such restrictions. :-(( > This has caused some consternation in local discussion groups, but if those users are as advanced as you claim, they should be able to smarthost through Cox's SMTP servers, or just pay the extra money for a business connection with a static IP. I've chosen the latter. The "business connection" costs at least three or four times as much money, and with the economy being the way it's been for about three years now, that's simply not a viable option for many of us. If I eventually develop a greater need for my own local servers being directly on the Net, perhaps I can eventually justify that extra expense. That's not the case, though, yet. > If you have dynamic IP addresses, why run your own MTA? There are a variety of operational reasons to want to do that, including the ability to send outgoing mails by quite directly inserting them into the MTA's xmit holding queues rather than having to send them via SMTP... this allows more easy and fast/efficient integration of e-mailings through other business applications (invoicing, drafting, etc.) > It's no use for incoming mail, I don't use my SMTP server (of course) for incoming mail (well, not DIRECTLY, anyhow). It's for outgoing mail only. Obviously, an incoming mail server would need to be directly accessible from elsewhere on the Net. I have a different system here which handles incoming mail... a SPITBOL-based daemon which retrieves mail periodically from my various POP3 mailboxes all around the Net, applies filtering rules and a whole series of modification procedures to those messages, and then puts the preprocessed messages directly into the incoming message (pending pickup) queues at my local (EMWAC) MTA. So in a way, I *am* using my local mail server for incoming mail, but not (to stay within my TOS restrictions of my ISP) in a way that makes it accessible from elsewhere on the Net, only within my local LAN here. > ...and for outgoing mail you could use your ISP's MTA. In fact, at the moment I am basically doing that, although in the case of one of my consulting clients they can't readily use the ISP's SMTP MTA while still using their own corporate domain name. :-( Presently my outgoing mail goes from my mail client software to my local EMWAC SMTP server (on my NT4 server), from there through WinProxy (on my Win2K server) to my ISP's SMTP server and from there on out through my cable modem router and NAT box to the Net. I still would greatly prefer to use my own directly accessible outgoing SMTP server, if for no other reason than because it would reduce a lot of totally pointless bulk in my outgoing E-mails (due to the additional Received: lines which get added for each additional intermediate stage) and because it would give me better control over the whole E-mail operation. But again, it's not only just about my NORMAL operations here from my home office. It's also about what I need to do when I'm travelling, such as from Internet cafes (possibly in foreign countries, possibly onboard cruise ships etc) where one has truly NO control over outgoing mail server configuration. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 13:36:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03563 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JHaDa32766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:36:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3KX-0008WP-LG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:36:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03530; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3IE-0007no-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:33:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3IE-0007nl-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:33:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3KL-0008T1-R6; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3K3-0008ST-Hp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:35:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03509 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3Hk-0007nQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:33:20 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3Hk-0007nN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:33:20 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AMV24059; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:35:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIY13437; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Message-ID: <001a01c33689$34657670$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: [Asrg] Microsoft files suit against Spammers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:35:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id NAA03563 Microsoft has filed 15 lawsuits against spammers in Washington State and in the UK. Pointers to PDF's for 13 of the cases can be found on FindLaw.com. See: Microsoft Corp. v. Email Gold, Inc., et al. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msemailg61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. The E-Offer Store [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/mseoffer61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. GiantLinks, Inc., et al. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msgiantlnk61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. Global Media, Inc. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msglbmed61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. InterWeb Hosting, LLC, et al. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msintrwb61703cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 1-20 [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msdoes12061603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 1-20 (2nd set) [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msdoes2nd61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. Khoshnood, et al. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/mspointcom61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. RHC Direct, LLC [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msrhc61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. Rockin Time Holdings, Inc., et al. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msrockin61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. Tranzact Media, Inc. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/mstranz61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. VMC, Inc. et al. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msvms61603cmp.pdf Microsoft Corp. v. XPAYS, Inc. [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/msxpays61603cmp.pdf _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 13:50:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04494 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JHo4O05456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3Xw-0001Pv-Dv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04463; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3Vd-0000Ea-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:47:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3Vc-0000EX-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:47:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3Xs-0001O2-Rf; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:50:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3Xj-0001Nf-PJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:49:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04439 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3VQ-0000Dz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:47:28 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3VP-0000Ds-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:47:28 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19T3Xf-0004Rh-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:49:47 -0600 Message-ID: <3EF1F7DE.9070305@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Reverse DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:50:22 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are other ways to authenticate an email with a server. I have suggested one such method. It requires no DNS and could be used for static and dynamic IP addresses. If you have the IP address of the originating email, it is possible to trace that back to some entity even if it's dialup. The method is found at: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05393.html and goes as follows: Sender authentication should be applied. A header called Sender-Auth or Sender-Verification will be inserted into the message by the sending server. It would consist of a delimited string containing the IP address, server identification, and a timestamp. The string would be preceded by the result of a function that was applied to that string as it was sent by the originating server. A delimiter would separate the function result from the string. The function would be implemented by the server administrator and would be unique for that server or set of servers. A protocol would be employed such that a receiving server could request that the originating server verify that the Sender-Auth header is consistent. The originating server would be required to apply it's function to the string as sent by the requesting server and then return the result. The receiving server would compare the returned function result with the result in the Sender-Auth header and if they match, the sending server is authentic. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:12:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06459 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JICEY12153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3tO-00039w-BU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06422; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3r3-0000jS-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3r2-0000jM-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3tC-000369-0j; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3sz-00035W-Al for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:11:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06373 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3qg-0000iv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:26 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3qe-0000is-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:25 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141115.00b9af20@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:11:16 -0400 At 04:53 PM 6/15/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >[..] >During the discussion it struck me that a better approach to the problem >is the >following: > >A recipient should be able to create a specific-permission "whitelist" which >lists the senders (by E-mail address) to which they wish to assign "special" >privileges. Senders who are not on the whitelist would only be allowed to >send >that recipient plain, unencoded, ASCII text E-mails without HTML, scripting, >encoding, or any kind of attachments. >[..] >The whitelist would be maintained either at the recipient's mail server, or >local ISP's mail server, or else (for their own domain) at the domain >provider/mail forwarder... probably, as soon as the mail resolves to the >addressee domain. Maintaining white lists for users in places other than their computers raises privacy issues as mentioned many times prior. >You'll note that this scheme does not provide for the blocking (at this >level, >anyhow) of plain ASCII text spams. True. More on that later. > >But the great majority of spams use a variety of tricks to get past content >filters, and to deceive recipients. A *large* subset of those tricks are >based >on HTML: > > 1) HTML comments (and bogus HTML tags) to break up and obscure mail > content, >and to confuse content filters; HTML email is also used by many companies for legitimate purposes. > 2) graphic-mode-text (likewise); Same comment as above. > 3) links which purport to be one thing but where the actual hyperlink > in fact >(and usually invisibly) points somewhere else; Many spammers own their own domains and will not lose out from this. > 4) scripting where the message displayed only can be viewed as a > result of >the computational process, again to make things difficult for content filters. > >Attachments (especially in unsolicited E-mails) tend to frequently contain >viruses, worms, "background music" that's actually a PIF or EXE file, and >things >of that sort. Getting attachments from someone who doesn't ordinarily send >those is a warning sign that it might well be malicious. Not all attachments are bad. >[..] >By enabling a user to simply t-can any unexpected HTML-burdened (or >attachment-carrying) incoming message (and ideally as soon as it got to their >domain provider or ISP), spammers would be denied many of their most >cherished >and valuable tricks. Content filters would be far more useful and >efficient. >And much more of the remaining unsolicited spam that WOULD still be sent >would >be sent in plain ASCII text (knowing that sending unsolicited HTML E-mail was >the kiss of death...) meaning it would reduce wasted bandwidth for such >remaining spam mail net-wide by at least a factor of three to five. >[..] Thus proposal addresses many of the tricks that are used by spammers TODAY. As Vernon and many others mentioned on the list before spammers change very quickly and can adapt their practices very quickly as well. This scheme would be just a band aid to block some forms of spam until spammers will figure out a way around it just like many other proposals.. Additionally, many of the "Nigerian Scams" arrive as plain ASCII emails already and this scheme will not stop them. Another concern with this sceme is the fact that email will go back to the dark ages with no support for attachments and no HTML support. This may increase people's use for email which is already under attack by spammers. Is the medicine as bitter as the problem? Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital signatures are used. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:12:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06463 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JICEA12170 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3tO-0003AD-QO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06423; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3r3-0000jU-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3r2-0000jN-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3tB-00035z-Kd; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3sl-000342-9Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:11:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06367 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3qS-0000im-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:12 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3qQ-0000iR-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:09:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619140348.00b9af20@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Art Pollard , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030615164648.057334d0@mail.1s.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:10:56 -0400 At 04:46 PM 6/15/2003 -0600, Art Pollard wrote: >At 01:49 PM 6/15/2003 -0400, you wrote: >>At 11:18 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote: >> >>>On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] >>>wrote: >>>8<...>8 >>> > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather >>> > than the FROM address. >>> >>>A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a >>>'senders' >>>private key? >> >>I think he meant a digital certificate issued by a third-part certificate >>authority, not a digital signature. > >Actually, I meant a digital signature. ;-) > >Given a digital signature, one can be assured that the person who the mail >says wrote the message actually wrote the message. It will assist to >prevent spoofing of the sender's information (such as when spammers search >archives to figure out who knows who). It also kills the concept of deniability - all emails sent via such systems cannot be later denied by the sender. This would cause problems just like any other PKI system with cases where private keys are stolen. It would also given a much bigger legal weight to email messages than today. Also, will headers be signed as well? >I envision when the whitelisting of an individual happens, their public >key would be kept on record. The public key could be given in the header >of the message that passed the CR process. Headers are limited in size to 998 characters (RFC 2822). Large keys, especially after base64 encoding or MIME could easily dwarf that limit. MIME headers would have to be used instead. >Then if a new message comes in, the public key (again in the header) would >be looked up to see if it has been whitelisted. If it is not in the >whitelist, a challenge would be sent. If it is in the whitelist, then the >message would be checked to ensure that the key and the signature match. >If it passes then the message goes to the user. If it does not pass, a >challenge would be sent. > >So, in a sense, the whitelisting would be based on the public key -- not >on the e-mail address or user name or something forgable. > >This avoids having a third party authority having to provide certificates >for one person or another. People could generate their own key sets. And >as long as they provided the same public/private keys to each account that >they used then their previous whitelistings would go with them. This being the main advantage of such scheme - ability to switch email addresses without being re-whitelisted. >You do not need somebody to provide a certificate since the odds of having >two people having the same public/private key pair are minimal and if >there were a collision, there isn't much that a spammer could do about >it. And even if they could, it would only consist of spamming only a >handful of people (like 1-100) -- not the millions that they are used >to. It just wouldn't be worth their time and effort. > >I don't think that certificates through a third party that guarantee that >someone is who they say they are are really worthwhile since all it takes >is for someone dishonest to start handing out falsified certificates. Or >if a centralized certificate authorities were used, they would have a hard >time keeping up with applications. Additionally, some systems such as PGP, do not use third party CAs. >Instead, just let people generate their own public/private keys and don't >pay attention to whether they are who they say they are as the CR system >will weed out those who have malicious intent. Correct. This scheme may very well fit within the general CRI protocol as an extension. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:15:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06933 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIFEs13660 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3wH-0003YF-Ul for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06760; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3tx-0000oO-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3ts-0000oD-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3w5-0003Sz-J9; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3vg-0003QZ-Od for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:14:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06670 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3tN-0000mi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:13 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3tL-0000ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:12 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141151.00bb98a8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: <001601c33393$cef8b240$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030615120833.00bb3d70@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:45 -0400 At 07:14 PM 6/15/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > The only useful utility that may possible come from > > prior art is the determination of how strong the > > patent is - but then again we are not lawyers. > > No. This is simply not true. > > First, the "strength" of the patent is only of secondary >interest in a "research" group where the focus should be on determining >what is the best mechanism or process for ending the spam problem. The >"strength" of a patent will only become interesting once one is at the >point of recommending specific solutions -- not when we're still trying >to understand what solutions are possible. To understand this >application domain, we need to understand the patented methods, and >their prior art, as well as the unpatented ones. > Discovering and discussing prior art is useful in that this >prior art might reveal some aspect of a solution that the patent doesn't >cover. Remember, the goal here is "research" or "learning." Also, the >presence of prior art is something that should eventually get used by >those who take the non-research step of recommending and investing in >specific solutions. Just as it is important to know that one or another >method is encumbered, it is important to know that prior art may exist >for one or another encumbering patent. Bob, I hear you. Due to your input, I will be splitting the file I am maintaining into two - one for general IPR issues and second for IPR disclosures made by members of the group. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:16:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07013 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIFb314370 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3wf-0003jh-Ab for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:37 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06891; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3w5-0003Sr-7L; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3vf-0003QS-3w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:14:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06653 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3tL-0000md-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:11 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3tI-0000mA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141309.00bcc7b0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Meng Weng Wong From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Objection: spammers will use <> Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030617132233.P57133@Space.Net> References: <20030616162825.GF29227@dumbo.pobox.com> <20030612202450.1BC97DE41@dumbo.pobox.com> <16106.18479.22082.172583@world.std.com> <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <20030616163347.B57133@Space.Net> <20030616162825.GF29227@dumbo.pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:13:58 -0400 At 01:22 PM 6/17/2003 +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:28:25PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote: > > The original DMP I-D says, in the case of a blank envelope sender, > > test using the HELO domain instead of the envelope sender domain. > >Wow ... how's the weather on your planet? >Out of 7394 connections on one of our mailservers that is closed to >customer access 6789 had non matching (the hostname) HELO arguments. > >Most HELO arguments are pc01 and the like. >On our MX mailservers the ration is similar, but of course the are a lot >of spammers that fake them, but I intentionally made the test on a non >MX mailserver. > >So you want to force about 90% of all mailserver administrators (most of >the clueless) to change the configuration of their mailserver? Have fun. Check the RFCs, but I believe that the domain in HELO command cannot be relied upon for checking. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:18:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07277 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIHXx15966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:17:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3yW-00049R-V5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:17:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07206; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3y1-00042t-F6; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T3xu-000425-Eh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:16:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07105 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3vb-0000tc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:14:31 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3vY-0000tK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:14:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141539.03652e78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:16:31 -0400 At 12:50 PM 6/17/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> A recipient should be able to create a specific-permission > > "whitelist" which lists the senders (by E-mail address) to > > which they wish to assign "special" privileges. > > > Personally, I believe that this kind of approach will be much >more likely to result in useful throttling of spam. > >Thanks! Obviously, I agree. > >In particular, when you actually look at the spam (and viruses, and worms) >going >through the Net, the *great* majority of it is pernicious (and hard to >filter) >due to various tricks generally exploiting HTML, encoded text, and >attachments. > >It's notable, I think, that very little LEGITIMATE E-mail content (and >relatively few senders) need to send E-mail containing those types of content. > >In my case, I would probably enable less than 10-15% of my correspondents to >send me that type of stuff. >[..] Can ISPs on the list provide some statistics on percentage of legimitate email coming in as HTML, attachments, base64, etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:21:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07642 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIL0116506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T41s-0004I7-CW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:21:00 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07615; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T40v-0004Bu-SI; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T40r-0004BN-5P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:19:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07428 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3yX-0000yW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:17:33 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T3yV-0000yS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:17:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141724.00b4fb00@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Reverse DNS In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:19:31 -0400 At 12:56 PM 6/18/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > We are presently >requiring reverse DNS for IP addresses of MTA's which connect to our MX >(with exceptions, which are dwindling). This has nothing to do with the >MAIL FROM domain, it simply means that if you connect to us, your IP address >must have a name, and that name must map back to your IP address. What you >suggest above is exactly the sort of next step we're looking for; namely, >a DNS RR which tells the world that a particular host name has been designated >as an MTA (outgoing at least). > >There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who presently >run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not all >(valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP addresses. > >Likewise, since I have a "residential" type high speed connection, I have >*very* >limited abilities (and that only because of my own domain names, but I don't >have my own Net-accessible DNS server in any case) to manipulate the DNS >records >associated with those domains. > >I suspect that a fair number of other consultant-type users are in a similar >boat to myself on points like this. It's the needs of some of us >'advanced/small' users which the spf folks seem willing to totally ignore. I have my own SMTP server as well since my ISP does not provide one. HOWEVER, all IP addresses assigned by my ISP have reverse DNS records. I believe this is not a problem AS LONG AS ISPs will provide those problems. RMX/SPF and similar systems on the other hand will cause a problem. Someone earlier suggested that free DNS systems such as dyndns.org would provide RMX functionality for such cases. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:24:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07837 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JINXP17715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:23:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T44K-0004be-Vc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:23:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07778; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T43p-0004WF-FB; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T432-0004VF-Al for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:22:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07700 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T40i-00013S-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:19:48 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T40g-00013B-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:19:47 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619142101.00bd4580@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Selby Hatch , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Reverse DNS In-Reply-To: <3EF1F7DE.9070305@azza.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:21:46 -0400 At 11:50 AM 6/19/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: >There are other ways to authenticate an email with a server. I have >suggested one such method. It requires no DNS and could be used for >static and dynamic IP addresses. If you have the IP address of the >originating email, it is possible to trace that back to some entity even >if it's dialup. The method is found at: > >https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05393.html > >and goes as follows: > >Sender authentication should be applied. A header called Sender-Auth or >Sender-Verification will be inserted into the message by the sending >server. It would consist of a delimited string containing the IP >address, server identification, and a timestamp. The string would be >preceded by the result of a function that was applied to that string as >it was sent by the originating server. A delimiter would separate the >function result from the string. The function would be implemented by >the server administrator and would be unique for that server or set of >servers. > >A protocol would be employed such that a receiving server could request >that the originating server verify that the Sender-Auth header is >consistent. The originating server would be required to apply it's >function to the string as sent by the requesting server and then return >the result. The receiving server would compare the returned function >result with the result in the Sender-Auth header and if they match, the >sending server is authentic. This basically would be Challenge/Response for mail servers, instead of C/R for email addresses. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:43:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08766 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIh6t24047 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:43:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4NG-0006Fm-EW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:43:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08736; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4Kw-0001II-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:40:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4Kw-0001IF-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:40:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4NA-0006Dk-HO; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4Mp-0006DN-Av for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08711 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4KV-0001He-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:40:15 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4KT-0001HE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:40:14 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JIfkdR012997 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:41:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306191841.h5JIfkdR012997@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141115.00b9af20@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:41:46 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > HTML email is also used by many companies for legitimate purposes. That is true only in absolute numbers, because the Internet is so large that even tiny minorities can involve big numbers. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the use of HTML is at best a waste of bandwidth and CPU cycles. There is far more use of HTML mail to violate privacy with such as "web bugs" than legitimate use. We will know that Microsoft really cares about spam not when when they file more lawsuits, but when they change the default configuration of Internet Explorer to avoid generating HTML mail, when they chagne Internet Explorer to not just assume that plaintext mail that contains strings that look like HTML is HTML, and when they make it easy for Hotmail and MSN users to reject HTML mail. HTML will always be a fertile ground for privacy violations and other nastiness. If not for HTML mail, users would be less conditioned to accept worms and viruses and would instead be naturally suspicious of "active content." I'm sure there are legitimate uses of HTML mail, but I cannot remember ever receiving one. I bet that you have never received HTML mail that would not have been better in plaintext, perhaps with a URL pointing to a web page. (Note that modern browsers present URLs in plaintext as "clickable links.") > ... > Another concern with this sceme is the fact that email will go back to the > dark ages with no support for attachments and no HTML support. This may > increase people's use for email which is already under attack by spammers. > Is the medicine as bitter as the problem? There is a difference between having no support for fancy features and using those fancy features everywhere and where they are a positive hazard to computer security and personal privacy. > Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital > signatures are used. That is entirely mistaken. You might want to ensure that sender and recipient agree on whether to sign the encoded or plaintext versions of the message, but that's all. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:49:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09106 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIn4G25297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4T2-0006Zw-7o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09021; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4Qi-0001MM-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:46:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4Qi-0001MI-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:46:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4Sz-0006Wv-91; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4Sm-0006WY-PK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:48:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09000 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4QT-0001Ll-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:46:25 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4QS-0001Lh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:46:24 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JImhE3013098 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:48:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306191848.h5JImhE3013098@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141539.03652e78@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:48:43 -0600 (MDT) > Can ISPs on the list provide some statistics on percentage of legimitate > email coming in as HTML, attachments, base64, etc. That's an example of a question that, as phrased, should not be asked. An ISP cannot say anything about the legitimacy of incoming mail. An ISP can say some mail is not legitimate, but that implies nothing either way about whether the remaining mail is legitimate. That popular MUAs send HTML by default also makes the question as phrased a distraction and a likely seed of misinformation. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 14:53:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09251 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JIr3l25842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:53:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4Wt-0006ij-9o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:53:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09239; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4UZ-0001PV-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:50:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4UZ-0001PS-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:50:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4Wr-0006fh-4g; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4WE-0006fA-BS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09223 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4Tu-0001PF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:58 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4Tu-0001PC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:49:58 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AMV33816; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIY29278; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <001b01c33693$e5869240$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141115.00b9af20@solidmatrix.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id OAA09251 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Maintaining white lists for users in places other > than their computers raises privacy issues as > mentioned many times prior. As has also been mentioned many times in the past, the use of "virtual" or "implicit" whitelists by means of using single-user addresses or passing authentication tokens as part of messages can give the effect of whitelists while reducing significantly the privacy issues. (since the whitelist is distributed, it is harder to reconstruct.) When discussing "whitelisting" we should not confuse the mechanism with the concept. The concept is that some subset of the entire universe of senders is given preferred access to an inbox. This can either be by checking against an explicit whitelist which is represented as a monolithic list of senders and privledges or it can be done algorithmically by checking properties of the sent message (i.e. tokens in headers or in addresses) to determine if the sender is on an "implicit" or "virtual" whitelist. The privacy issues with whitelists only apply to some of the mechanisms for constructing and/or maintaining them. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:06:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10922 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJ5Yh29503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:05:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4iz-0007fm-VL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:05:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10779; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4gf-0001iG-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:03:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4gf-0001iD-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:03:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4iS-0007Zd-SG; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:05:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T4hu-0007RK-1V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:04:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10536 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4fa-0001gF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:02:02 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T4fZ-0001gC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:02:01 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABR39516; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIY31665; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <001c01c33695$98f00680$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200306191841.h5JIfkdR012997@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:04:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id PAA10922 Vernon Schryver wrote: > The overwhelmingly vast majority of the use of HTML is > at best a waste of bandwidth and CPU cycles. This is, at best, a representation of a personal, subjective opinion. The reality is that there is great demand for "rich text" messaging and there always has been. There are many clear indicators that large numbers of people like to both send and receive HTML formatted messages. This demand is not new. As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email messaging capabilities. If anything, the demand for such a capability has increased over time. It is no more reasonable to demand that the world accept that email should not contain rendering information than it would be for some religious sect to demand that we not "pollute" the walls of our homes with art. Our challenge should be to figure out how to give the users what they want without exposing them to unnecessary risks. If the problem is a difficult one to solve, it isn't because what the users want is some that is not "legitimage," rather, it simply means that we're not being creative enough in defining solutions. > There is far more use of HTML mail to violate privacy > with such as "web bugs" than legitimate use. I don't believe this to be true. I get loads of "legitimate" HTML mail every day. In any case, it doesn't matter. The issue is how to design a system that works, not how to restrict legitimate users from accomplishing their goals or seeing "pretty" email messages. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:28:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13806 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJSDc05117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T54v-0001KC-Bj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13791; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T52c-0002G6-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:25:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T52c-0002G1-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:25:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T54j-0001G0-Me; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T53s-0001DL-1k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:27:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13626 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T51Z-0002DT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:24:45 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T51W-0002DD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:24:44 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619152636.00bd4580@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:26:37 -0400 At 12:41 PM 6/19/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: >[..] > > > Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital > > signatures are used. > >That is entirely mistaken. You might want to ensure that sender and >recipient agree on whether to sign the encoded or plaintext versions >of the message, but that's all. In the scheme proposed by Art Pollard, a copy of the public key would be included with the signed message. Common format for public key certificates use base 64 encoded, outright ban of all base-64 email would be a problem for this. The point I was trying to make is that outright ban on ALL base-64 email is not a simple as it sounds. There are legit applications that use it and such banning approach would have to take them into account. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:28:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13805 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJSD605101 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T54v-0001KB-Aw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13790; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T52c-0002G8-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:25:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T52c-0002G2-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:25:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T54k-0001Ge-6i; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:28:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T54Y-0001Fm-Ag for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:27:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13754 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T52G-0002Fc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:25:28 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T52E-0002FZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:25:27 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JJRdwd019165 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:27:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306191927.h5JJRdwd019165@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <001c01c33695$98f00680$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:27:39 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Bob Wyman" > > The overwhelmingly vast majority of the use of HTML is > > at best a waste of bandwidth and CPU cycles. > This is, at best, a representation of a personal, subjective > opinion. The reality is that there is great demand for "rich text" > messaging and there always has been. There are many clear indicators > that large numbers of people like to both send and receive HTML > formatted messages. This demand is not new. I find your claim even more of personal, subjectve, and inaccurate. As you say, there has been a great and legitimate demand for "rich text messaging," but the vast, overwhelming majority of HTML email uses nothing that might be called "rich text messaging," unless you equate soft line breaks with rich text. The vast majority of users do not use any sort of formating including bold and italics in their personal mail. They can barely manage to turn on spell checking. Essentially all of that great demand for rich text is from sales professionals of one sort or another and other people writing formal message, and they are generally unable to manage more than what might be called Powerpoint-HTML. > As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the > first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers > were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email > messaging capabilities. If anything, the demand for such a capability > has increased over time. Of course, but how much of that "high quality email" is used except in various kinds of sales presentations? The overwhelmingly vast majority of email is informal. It makes as much sense to say that much email should use HTML as to claim the same for SMS....don't tell me that some sort of 3G cellphone gateway is going to use HTML for SMS because I'll believe you, and because it would support my point. > It is no more reasonable to demand that the world accept that > email should not contain rendering information than it would be for some > religious sect to demand that we not "pollute" the walls of our homes > with art. That's nice, and unrelated to what I wrote. I didn't say that Hotmail accounts should reject HTML by default but only that Hotmail users should be able to reject HTML mail. I also didn't say that IE and Netscape should not be able to generate HTML mail, but only that they should not generate it by default. Both were intentional. > Our challenge should be to figure out how to give the users > what they want without exposing them to unnecessary risks. If the > problem is a difficult one to solve, it isn't because what the users > want is some that is not "legitimage," rather, it simply means that > we're not being creative enough in defining solutions. I carefully did not say that all HTML is illegitimate. So why are you implying that I did? Do you have some vested interest in HTML mail software? As I said, some HTML mail is legitimate and because of the size of the Internet, that tiny minority is a lot of messages. However, that tiny minority of legitimate HTML mail has nothing to do with the vastly larger bazillions of messages from end users that are in HTML only because their MUAs use HTML by default. Then there are the bazillions of spam in HTML. > > There is far more use of HTML mail to violate privacy > > with such as "web bugs" than legitimate use. > I don't believe this to be true. I get loads of "legitimate" > HTML mail every day. In any case, it doesn't matter. The issue is how to > design a system that works, not how to restrict legitimate users from > accomplishing their goals or seeing "pretty" email messages. I'm happy you're happy with your legitimate HTML mail. However, I stand by my claim by pointing to the vast quantity of spam and of legitimate, (because explicitly solicited) marketing mail that contains web bugs. How many marketing organizations that have resisted the sales calls from the mail coverage tracking vendors has not implemented their own tracking systems? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:33:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14415 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJX3G06881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:33:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T59b-0001mu-2s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14379; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T57I-0002QA-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:30:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T57I-0002Q7-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:30:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T59Z-0001jt-8u; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T59H-0001jc-0t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:32:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14300 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T56y-0002Ol-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:30:20 -0400 Received: from 000-233-701.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.152.22] helo=68.27.152.22) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T56w-0002Oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:30:19 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619153128.00b9a128@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea In-Reply-To: <200306191927.h5JJRdwd019165@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <001c01c33695$98f00680$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:32:15 -0400 At 01:27 PM 6/19/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: >[..] > > > Our challenge should be to figure out how to give the users > > what they want without exposing them to unnecessary risks. If the > > problem is a difficult one to solve, it isn't because what the users > > want is some that is not "legitimage," rather, it simply means that > > we're not being creative enough in defining solutions. > >I carefully did not say that all HTML is illegitimate. So why are >you implying that I did? Do you have some vested interest in HTML >mail software? As I said, some HTML mail is legitimate and because >of the size of the Internet, that tiny minority is a lot of messages. >However, that tiny minority of legitimate HTML mail has nothing to do >with the vastly larger bazillions of messages from end users that are >in HTML only because their MUAs use HTML by default. > >Then there are the bazillions of spam in HTML. >[..] Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML messages in order to kill spam. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:38:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14745 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJc3J09345 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:38:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5ER-0002Qe-LT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:38:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14723; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5C9-0002Vu-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:35:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5C8-0002Vr-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:35:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5EP-0002Nd-I3; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5EN-0002NP-UX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:37:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14716 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5C5-0002Vn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:35:37 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5C4-0002Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:35:37 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JJbv0Y020141 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:37:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306191937.h5JJbv0Y020141@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619152208.00b9a128@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:37:57 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital > > > signatures are used. > > > >That is entirely mistaken. You might want to ensure that sender and > >recipient agree on whether to sign the encoded or plaintext versions > >of the message, but that's all. > > In the scheme proposed by Art Pollard, a copy of the public key would be > included with the signed message. Common format for public key certificates > use base 64 encoded, outright ban of all base-64 email would be a problem > for this. Oh, I hadn't thought of that. However, you could encode a signature with either quoted-printable or a binary MIME Content-Type. Yes, of course, neither would be as appropriate as Base64. > The point I was trying to make is that outright ban on ALL > base-64 email is not a simple as it sounds. There are legit applications > that use it and such banning approach would have to take them into account. That's certainly true. As far as I can tell, all calls for bans on Base64 and Quoted-Printable are based on naive visions on how the system works or simplistic spam filters. Base64 and Quoted-Printable are as relevant to spam or security problems as whether your network uses 4B5B or NRZI. Base64, Quoted-Printable, 4B5B, and NRZI can all be decoded with simple, single pass state machines with only a few bits of state. I must admit that some of my irritation with HTML is because it cannot be decode into what the user will see with Internet Explorer or Netscape as readily. As far as I can tell, you must generate an HTML parse tree. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:48:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15140 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJmCj11545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:48:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5OF-000307-TQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:48:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15095; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5Lx-0002aI-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:45:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5Lr-0002aC-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:45:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5O6-0002tJ-QR; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:48:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5Nc-0002s5-OV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:47:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15071 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5LK-0002Za-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:45:10 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5LI-0002ZX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:45:09 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JJlQ8J021067 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:47:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306191947.h5JJlQ8J021067@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619153128.00b9a128@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:47:26 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML messages > in order to kill spam. Of course not. Who suggested anything of the sort? We still have legitimate SMTP relays. Suggestions that all SMTP relays be outlawed or sacrificed come from only kooks and those who are so completely ignorant of the system that they don't know about MX secondarys and "smart hosts." Making HTML email not be the default sacrafices nothing more than changing the default in sendmail, which was not a sacrafice at all. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 15:59:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15779 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JJx5e14442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:59:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5Yn-0003kr-QU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:59:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15759; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5WV-0002jw-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:56:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5WU-0002jt-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:56:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5Yj-0003ix-F0; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5Xz-0003ht-Us for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:58:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15745 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5Vh-0002ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:55:53 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5Vg-0002jf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:55:53 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5DE48232D8; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:57:43 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030619195743.GA1093@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619141115.00b9af20@solidmatrix.com> <200306191841.h5JIfkdR012997@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306191841.h5JIfkdR012997@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:57:43 +0100 On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:41:46PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > I'm sure there are legitimate uses of HTML mail, but I cannot remember > ever receiving one. I maintain a number of mailing lists which the members of various (non-technical) organizations use to communicate with each other. The volume of legitimate HTML email on these lists is quite high. Programmers and sysadmins, and people who started using email before MIME was introduced, tend to dislike HTML email. Other people see the ability to use boldface and italics as normal features of any text-editing environment (which they consider their MUA to be). They would find the idea of suppressing those features simply bizarre. When writing a document that is going to be printed, whether we use Microsoft Word or LaTeX, we can put the title of a book in italics; people have come to expect that the same is true when they write email. As for attachments, nowadays, many people have digital cameras and high-speed Internet connections, and like to send photos to their friends via email. It is no use telling these people that 'sending large attachments is poor netiquette'; they and their friends have the requisite bandwidth, and it doesn't bother them. My own view is that these issues are red herrings. Spam is spam whether it consists of an ASCII text file or a JPEG. Effective anti-spam measures should stop spam regardless of its format. Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 16:22:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16549 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JKM7Z21243 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:22:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5v5-0005WY-3m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:22:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16517; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5sm-0002tg-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:19:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5sm-0002td-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:19:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5uz-0005Uf-8M; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T5uo-0005UO-LE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:21:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16497 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5sW-0002tU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:19:28 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T5sU-0002tQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:19:27 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JKLjvC003843 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:21:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306192021.h5JKLjvC003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <20030619195743.GA1093@socialtools.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:21:45 -0600 (MDT) > From: Benjamin Geer > > I'm sure there are legitimate uses of HTML mail, but I cannot remember > > ever receiving one. > > I maintain a number of mailing lists which the members of various > (non-technical) organizations use to communicate with each other. The > volume of legitimate HTML email on these lists is quite high. Is it high because those people use bold, italic, and so forth or because their MUAs send in HTML by default and they are not savvy enough to fix that problem? > Programmers and sysadmins, and people who started using email before MIME > was introduced, tend to dislike HTML email. There is some truth to that, but it is overstated. > Other people see the ability to > use boldface and italics as normal features of any text-editing environment > (which they consider their MUA to be). That is also true, but overstated. The vast majority of email is too informal to have spell checking except where it is automatic (and I doubt most users bother to turn it on). People can almost never (statistically) be bothered to notice typos confounding "you're" with "your", and use bold and italics even less often. However, that implies nothing about not having reasonable text formating (not "editing") facilities when you want them. > They would find the idea of > suppressing those features simply bizarre. When writing a document that is > going to be printed, whether we use Microsoft Word or LaTeX, we can put the > title of a book in italics; people have come to expect that the same is true > when they write email. What I find bizzare is the persistent equating of turning off HTML by default with banning HTML. Those responses make me wonder if I've not been paying enough attention. Is HTML mail being summarily rejected by ISPs and commercial mail gateways? Given facts of life including spam and web bugs, why would that be worse than filtering mail with large attachments due to facts of life including worms? > As for attachments, nowadays, many people have digital cameras and > high-speed Internet connections, and like to send photos to their friends > via email. It is no use telling these people that 'sending large attachments > is poor netiquette'; they and their friends have the requisite bandwidth, > and it doesn't bother them. That misrepresents the advice. It is in fact poor netiquette to send large attachments without knowing your targets want and can handle them. Once you know, there's no problem. Are you advocating a right to send HTML or MByte attachments to perfect strangers? Why didn't you send your message in HTML, perhaps with a picture of your significant other, house, new baby, car, or something else close to your heart? > My own view is that these issues are red herrings. Spam is spam whether it > consists of an ASCII text file or a JPEG. Effective anti-spam measures > should stop spam regardless of its format. Yes, but equating not sending attachments without knowing your correspondents want them with banning attachments or not using HTML to send simply ASCII mail to banning HTML is a worse red herring. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 16:58:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17920 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JKw8I29221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6Tw-0007bE-Gd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17889; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6Rd-0003CR-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:55:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6Rd-0003CO-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:55:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6To-0007ZG-Hs; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6TS-0007Z1-VE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:57:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17879 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6RA-0003CD-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:55:16 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6R9-0003CA-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:55:15 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19T6TQ-0004zB-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:57:36 -0600 Message-ID: <3EF223E2.9000205@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Reverse DNS References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619142101.00bd4580@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619142101.00bd4580@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:58:10 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 11:50 AM 6/19/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: > >> There are other ways to authenticate an email with a server. I have >> suggested one such method. It requires no DNS and could be used for >> static and dynamic IP addresses. If you have the IP address of the >> originating email, it is possible to trace that back to some entity even >> if it's dialup. The method is found at: >> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05393.html >> >> >> and goes as follows: >> >> Sender authentication should be applied. A header called Sender-Auth or >> Sender-Verification will be inserted into the message by the sending >> server. It would consist of a delimited string containing the IP >> address, server identification, and a timestamp. The string would be >> preceded by the result of a function that was applied to that string as >> it was sent by the originating server. A delimiter would separate the >> function result from the string. The function would be implemented by >> the server administrator and would be unique for that server or set of >> servers. >> >> A protocol would be employed such that a receiving server could request >> that the originating server verify that the Sender-Auth header is >> consistent. The originating server would be required to apply it's >> function to the string as sent by the requesting server and then return >> the result. The receiving server would compare the returned function >> result with the result in the Sender-Auth header and if they match, the >> sending server is authentic. > > > This basically would be Challenge/Response for mail servers, instead of > C/R for email addresses. > True. And doesn't most spam originate from servers that they are trying to keep unidentified? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:21:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19069 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLL8303151 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:21:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6qC-0000ok-HO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:21:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19054; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6nt-0003SC-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:18:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6ns-0003S8-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:18:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6q5-0000ms-Ad; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6pT-0000mH-3D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19032 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6n9-0003Rm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:17:59 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6n9-0003Rj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:17:59 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mheys@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5JLKJLZ023578; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:19 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16724; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> From: Barry Shein To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Point of information... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Executive Summary: IT'S THE CRIME, STUPID! I think these discussions are entirely missing the meat (heh) of the spam problem. The problem is, to paraphrase Crazy Eddie*: How do they do it? volume! Volume!! VOLUME!!! And how do spammers achieve volume? crimes! Crimes!! CRIMES!!! I have filters set up for many specific spams, typically on URLs in the body text, going thru World (not my personal mailbox, the entire system.) I will see the same exact spam sent from dozens and sometimes hundreds of different IP addresses in a day. The spammers do not own those machines. The machines are generally in dial-up, DSL, or cable modem pools and appear to have been hijacked by viruses or similar, though not exclusively. This is already illegal. Fraud and illegality are a spammers' stock in trade. That means they do not sell advertising. They do not sell e-mail marketing services. What they sell their customers is CRIME. They'll use 150 computers illegally to send out your spam. Their customers aren't so inclined. So better to pay the spammer a few bucks. It's similar to the old organized crime waste-dumping where you'd pay some guys a few bucks in cash and they'd take your toxic waste away in a truck and dump it on the side of the highway or some other place in the middle of the night. You could drive your own toxic waste to someplace out of the way and just dump it, but you don't have the inherent criminality; you don't consider 12 months in a medium-security lock-up every few years a cost of doing business. So you pay these guys and don't ask too many questions where your waste is going or how they dispose of it so cheaply. THEY weren't in the toxic waste removal business. And spammers aren't in the email marketing business. They are both selling CRIME. Fraud and illegallity are the only thing which makes it possible for spammers to be the problem they are. If the fraud and illegality which allows spammers to exploit untold thousands if not millions of others' computers were stopped (or even just seriously reduced) spam would not be much of a problem. If spammers had to own the machines and not steal resources wantonly: a) They couldn't afford enough machines to be much of a nuisance any more than those guys in waste-management could pay to have your toxic waste properly disposed of. The criminality is essential to their business model. b) They couldn't afford the bandwidth and connectivity. c) We'd all know where it was coming from even if they could manage to set it up so we'd just block it anyhow. If Ralsky (e.g.) truly had rackloads of machines pumping multiple T3's or better we'd just block the IPs and it'd be over. If they hijacked ip blocks that'd be discovered quickly and be responded to also. But he and other spammers don't work that way. They jump between hundreds and hundreds of compromised computers. Ok, what to do isn't easy or obvious, BUT THAT'S ALL we really have to do and these guys are out of business, for all intents and purposes. Would you ever see another spam? Yes. Your kid brother downstairs with the hand-me-down Apple-][ could spam you, c'mon, get serious. Would we see millions upon millions of spams being sent out all over the internet which we can't block? No, almost certainly not. Would we see dictionary attacks and similar mind-boggling bulk attacks? No, almost certainly not. Rather simple filters/firewalls would catch them and shut them off because they wouldn't be hopping around between hundrds of compromised machines with seemingly random IP addresses. Just to demonstrate, attached below are the 141 different IP addresses used between midnight and about 5PM *TODAY* (i.e., 17 hours) seen by ONE server here for the same peace4earth.com spam (online pharmacy no prescription necessary etc.) All these machines have spewed the same exact spam message today: 144.136.188.26 148.223.188.163 166.114.107.98 168.126.169.195 194.149.108.140 194.222.2.132 195.146.157.49 195.226.230.200 195.38.105.32 195.77.209.5 210.103.209.187 210.107.38.24 210.18.122.10 210.196.88.115 210.49.252.134 210.49.35.166 210.7.84.103 210.83.219.132 212.142.189.146 212.150.88.36 213.134.0.8 213.178.69.82 213.229.7.76 213.245.66.166 213.76.139.210 213.8.90.124 213.96.78.12 213.96.98.101 213.97.182.231 216.104.197.157 217.10.248.122 217.107.128.90 217.133.25.4 217.159.17.146 217.218.89.149 217.219.166.6 217.37.65.89 218.106.244.2 218.135.142.155 218.152.51.197 218.234.135.162 218.242.115.80 218.253.129.63 218.253.168.99 218.253.33.71 218.64.148.222 218.64.151.147 218.64.211.22 218.64.86.38 219.145.195.104 219.232.25.221 219.241.175.134 219.241.3.45 220.120.60.4 220.121.152.206 220.125.152.91 220.168.130.74 220.40.224.29 220.70.167.99 220.72.211.120 220.83.131.175 220.84.110.82 220.86.180.223 220.87.245.28 220.92.247.7 61.10.43.85 61.10.76.27 61.100.215.253 61.11.76.122 61.15.141.194 61.15.196.157 61.16.132.39 61.16.133.19 61.16.150.6 61.161.97.202 61.171.149.58 61.18.156.192 61.18.50.198 61.184.37.171 61.187.68.2 61.236.107.10 61.238.167.165 61.243.63.3 61.26.188.189 61.32.66.204 61.39.4.196 61.42.67.233 61.42.84.83 61.43.149.135 61.43.153.231 61.52.63.153 61.53.202.109 61.66.104.251 61.70.123.156 61.74.2.189 61.78.159.172 61.96.154.84 61.97.43.233 62.117.78.235 62.121.12.28 62.141.70.94 62.143.165.76 62.193.75.114 62.253.113.94 62.32.38.22 62.43.121.103 62.43.121.46 62.56.179.147 62.57.109.183 64.187.38.68 66.130.203.126 80.132.60.153 80.179.64.8 80.198.62.112 80.232.222.8 80.26.113.36 80.32.12.234 80.32.126.242 80.32.141.144 80.33.100.178 80.33.215.46 80.33.62.168 80.35.160.47 80.35.73.190 80.35.82.133 80.36.157.166 80.4.4.110 80.50.134.132 80.55.178.34 80.56.116.171 80.59.244.197 80.83.39.243 81.102.213.101 81.130.202.75 81.202.22.228 81.202.96.77 81.203.72.212 81.218.30.231 81.220.66.251 81.66.157.15 81.98.93.221 Executive Conclusion: It's the CRIME, STUPID! * Crazy Eddie was a colorful character who owned a small chain of small appliance stores in the NY/NJ area. His ads were generally him running frenetically between items for sale laid out on a table in one of his stores yelling and screaming product names and prices at the camera and finishing up with one or both of "OUR PRICES ARE INSANE!" and "HOW DO WE DO IT? VOLUME! VOLUME!! VOLUME!!!" -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:23:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19293 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLN3E04391 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:23:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6s3-00018k-DT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:23:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19277; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6pk-0003WE-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6pj-0003WB-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6s1-00016m-Ft; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T6rI-000164-U4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:22:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19156 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6oz-0003U4-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:19:53 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6oz-0003Tu-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:19:53 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19T6rF-00053R-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:22:13 -0600 Message-ID: <3EF229A7.50002@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org References: <001c01c33695$98f00680$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619153128.00b9a128@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619153128.00b9a128@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:22:47 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 01:27 PM 6/19/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >> [..] >> >> > Our challenge should be to figure out how to give the users >> > what they want without exposing them to unnecessary risks. If the >> > problem is a difficult one to solve, it isn't because what the users >> > want is some that is not "legitimage," rather, it simply means that >> > we're not being creative enough in defining solutions. >> >> I carefully did not say that all HTML is illegitimate. So why are >> you implying that I did? Do you have some vested interest in HTML >> mail software? As I said, some HTML mail is legitimate and because >> of the size of the Internet, that tiny minority is a lot of messages. >> However, that tiny minority of legitimate HTML mail has nothing to do >> with the vastly larger bazillions of messages from end users that are >> in HTML only because their MUAs use HTML by default. >> >> Then there are the bazillions of spam in HTML. >> [..] > > > Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML > messages in order to kill spam. I agree. We should not sacrifice any email types or formats to kill spam. Rather than limit the types of email that we receive, we should state that we will only receive email from (1) a server that can be verified as the one from where the email originated and (2) an individual or entity who has received authorization from me to send me email, which authorization can be verified upon receipt. By limiting the mime types, base64, html, etc., we limit a great deal of useful features. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:33:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19719 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLX4T07018 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T71k-0001p7-RI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19700; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6zR-0003dC-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:30:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6zQ-0003d9-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:30:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T71h-0001m7-GF; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T713-0001l9-Ox for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:32:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19678 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:32:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6yk-0003d0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:29:58 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T6yj-0003cx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:29:57 -0400 Received: (cpmta 24396 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 14:32:17 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 14:32:17 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 21:32:17 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:31:15 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:17 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: asrg@ietf.org, , , X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:58:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Maintaining white lists for users in places other > than their computers raises privacy issues as > mentioned many times prior. First, let me point out that traditional "whitelists" have a number of problems with them. I think that many of those problems are mitigated by a PERMISSIONS-based whitelist such as I propose. Specifically, people willing to send plain ASCII text without encoding or attachments (and without any HTML tags) would have their messages (by default, at least) go through without any problems at all. This would enable those wishing to receive unsolicited messages (say, from consumers of a company's products, or from prospective new clients for my consulting services) to do so without any problems. HTML, attachments, and encoded text HUGELY magnify not just the bulk and bandwidth of E-mail, but also create VASTLY increased risk and opportunity for obscuring mail content, malicious code, and other fraud and deception. These features are simply not needed in basic E-mail (and that should include ALL unsolicited E-mail). Therefore, it makes sense in the "whitelist" to specify SPECIAL PRIVILEGES that are granted by a recipient to familiar, trusted, and justified senders of those kinds of costlier, riskier E-mail. Those untrusted/unknown/unfamiliar senders who [ab]use these features without prearrangement to do that ought to find their E-mail bounced or even just simply discarded. The GREAT majority of spam (and certainly the most dangerous/malicous/fraudulent), not to mention nearly all viruses and worms, are blocked virtually immediately by this simple, straightforward strategy... and one that can be implemented without major technological breakthrough or global re-engineering consensus. Even better, most of the spam/fraud E-mail remaining can be rather readily dealt with using various content filters. > As has also been mentioned many times in the past, the use of "virtual" or "implicit" whitelists I don't like anything that precludes unannounced delivery of (ordinary, plain text) mail from unexpected senders. Those mails can commonly include inquiries from potential new clients and customers. > ...by means of using single-user addresses or passing authentication tokens as part of messages Authentication tokens typically require special software provisions on the part of both the sender and the recipient. It likewise requires coordination and agreements on methodology and techniques so that we don't end up with a crazy-quilt patchwork, which doesn't suit ANYBODY. One nice thing about what I propose is that it can be implemented at the recipient ISP and is a single-ended system which doesn't require concurrence or adaptation by anybody else, other than merely sending unanticipated/unannounced E-mail in plain ASCII text (which should be the case, really, anyhow). > can give the effect of whitelists while reducing significantly the privacy issues. (since the whitelist is distributed, it is harder to reconstruct.) The whitelist I propose NEVER needs to be sent to anybody, other than (if the restriction is done at the ISP or domain provider, which has the advantage of truncating the spam sooner in the delivery chain) only just the point where the filtering is done. I don't think that the sender should be told by any automatic means what their permissions are (other than unacceptable mail MAYBE being bounced) and CERTAINLY nobody should be able to retrieve a copy of the ISP/domain provider's overall permissions list. Another advantage of my approach is that there is NO NEED to make any of that information available to anybody else. > When discussing "whitelisting" we should not confuse the mechanism with the concept. The concept is that some subset of the entire universe of senders is given preferred access to an inbox. Up to that point, at least, my approach matches your definition of "whitelist" as a concept... > This can either be by checking against an explicit whitelist which is represented as a monolithic list of senders and privledges or it can be done algorithmically by checking properties of the sent message (i.e. tokens in headers or in addresses) to determine if the sender is on an "implicit" or "virtual" whitelist. I don't like that sort of approach because it means that senders must make special provisions to send to specific users, leading either to the "crazy quilt" patchwork thing I mentioned before... or to the need for some kind of global agreement for some new kind of E-mail, which will inevitably break many currently operating (legitimate) senders. I'd like to see the permissions be changeable by the recipient at any time, besides, and that speaks against a token they'd deliver to an "approved sender" should that previously trusted sender betray that trust. It's really rather like using an answering machine to screen your calls... where the sender calls and presents their case, and the recipient can listen silently and decide whether or not (based on caller ID, perhaps, and the message format and content) they wish to pick up and accept the message. The GREAT majority of techniques used by spammers to obscure, defraud, mislead, deceive, and confuse are based on tricks of HTML, attachments, and encoding, including message-as-text, tricked-up obscured URLs, bogus HTML tags in the middle of words, misleading links, teeny 1-point text the same color as the background, and other such nonsense. Denying them *all* of those techniques in one fell swoop will deliver a _serious_ blow to spammers and fraudsters, at a minimum cost (indeed, at a considerable BENEFIT) to both legitimate users and ISPs. And the availability of the "whitelist" still allows (by prearranged agreement) any trusted sender to continue to send any of those features in their E-mail to willing recipients. I *really* do believe that this offers the best combination I've seen of safety, effectiveness, and low cost (implementation/operating) of any approach I've seen to date. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:36:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19813 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLa3s07779 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T74d-00021O-0o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:36:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19795; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T72J-0003eY-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T72J-0003eV-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:33:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T74b-0001uN-8K; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T73n-0001tr-E6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:35:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19763 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T71U-0003eA-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:32:48 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T71T-0003e7-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:32:47 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19T73j-00055N-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:35:07 -0600 Message-ID: <3EF22CAE.8020607@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org References: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Point of information... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:35:42 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein wrote: > Executive Summary: IT'S THE CRIME, STUPID! > > > I think these discussions are entirely missing the meat (heh) of the > spam problem. > > The problem is, to paraphrase Crazy Eddie*: > > How do they do it? volume! Volume!! VOLUME!!! > > And how do spammers achieve volume? > > crimes! Crimes!! CRIMES!!! > (snip) > > > > Executive Conclusion: It's the CRIME, STUPID! > > If this is the case, then the answer is statutory. Make the owner of the server responsible for it's security. If the owner can't secure it, then he looses his connection until he proves that it is secure. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:41:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20178 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLf6g10048 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T79W-0002bz-3T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20084; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T77C-0003hz-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:38:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T77C-0003hw-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:38:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T79R-0002a6-Q5; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T78n-0002Z5-DF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:40:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20001 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:40:17 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T76U-0003gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:37:58 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T76T-0003gv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:37:57 -0400 Received: (cpmta 25026 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 14:40:17 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 14:40:17 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 21:40:17 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:39:24 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:06:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: asrg@ietf.org, X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:06:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> ...when you actually look at the spam (and viruses, and worms) >going >through the Net, the *great* majority of it is pernicious (and hard to >filter) >due to various tricks generally exploiting HTML, encoded text, and >attachments. >>It's notable, I think, that very little LEGITIMATE E-mail content (and >relatively few senders) need to send E-mail containing those types of content. >> In my case, I would probably enable less than 10-15% of my correspondents to >send me that type of stuff. >[..] > Can ISPs on the list provide some statistics on percentage of legimitate email coming in as HTML, attachments, base64, etc. I'd like to see such numbers. A lot depends on whether you're talking about message volume (percentage of bytes) or message ratios (percentage of messages, disregarding sizes of messages). There are some skewing factors which also need to be taken into consideration, such as the fact that Hotmail and AOL (notably) as well as Microsoft Outlook are perversely set by default to send HTML-burdened E-mail, and by and large without any good reason for that. In most cases, it's POSSIBLE to force those services to send plain ASCII text E-mails, although many users are clueless regarding even the need for that, let alone how to do it. But it's fairly safe to say that, once AOL and other such large-volume ISPs and software vendors get the religion, the great majority of needlessly-HTML-burdened E-mail would vanish from the Net in short order. It would also be interesting to see what percentage of the attachments that ARE sent are of what types (dangrous PIF/EXE/SCR/etc versus safe GIF/JPG/PDF/TXT). Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:43:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20379 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLh5Q10664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7BR-0002lq-S6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20293; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T798-0003lK-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:40:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T797-0003lH-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:40:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7BN-0002iv-Sd; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7Aj-0002hz-Bk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:42:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20224 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T78P-0003kS-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:39:57 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T78O-0003kP-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:39:57 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19T7Ae-00056t-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:42:16 -0600 Message-ID: <3EF22E5B.807@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Asrg@ietf.org References: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Point of information... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:42:51 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry Shein wrote: > Executive Summary: IT'S THE CRIME, STUPID! > > > I think these discussions are entirely missing the meat (heh) of the > spam problem. > > The problem is, to paraphrase Crazy Eddie*: > > How do they do it? volume! Volume!! VOLUME!!! > > And how do spammers achieve volume? > > crimes! Crimes!! CRIMES!!! > (snip) > > > Executive Conclusion: It's the CRIME, STUPID! > > > On the other hand, if there is no place to dump the waste (blocking of spam through various measures), the illigitmate garbage man will be out of business. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:45:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20486 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLj3Y11845 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:45:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7DL-00034y-KA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20457; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7B2-0003oZ-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:42:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7B1-0003oW-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:42:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7DJ-00031q-Pw; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7Ce-0002pj-B5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:44:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20427 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:44:16 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7AL-0003o2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:57 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7AK-0003nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:41:56 -0400 Received: (cpmta 26661 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 14:44:16 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 14:44:16 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 21:44:16 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:43:24 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:10:28 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Reverse DNS To: asrg@ietf.org, X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:10:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who presently >run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not all >(valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP addresses. >>Likewise, since I have a "residential" type high speed connection, I have >*very* >limited abilities (and that only because of my own domain names, but I don't >have my own Net-accessible DNS server in any case) to manipulate the DNS >records >associated with those domains. >>I suspect that a fair number of other consultant-type users are in a similar >boat to myself on points like this. It's the needs of some of us >'advanced/small' users which the spf folks seem willing to totally ignore. > I have my own SMTP server as well since my ISP does not provide one. HOWEVER, all IP addresses assigned by my ISP have reverse DNS records. I believe this is not a problem AS LONG AS ISPs will provide those problems. The problem is that most large end-user-type ISPs really don't want the support hassles of supporting user DNS issues (which is part of why they price those services SO much higher). > RMX/SPF and similar systems on the other hand will cause a problem. Indeed. > Someone earlier suggested that free DNS systems such as dyndns.org would provide RMX functionality for such cases. Yes, but as I understand it they won't do much if anything for those of us who are still behind NAT and router, since domain names mapping to a nonroutable 192.168.n.n address seem pretty pointless... am I wrong? :-) Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:46:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20572 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLk4h12554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:46:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7EK-0003GP-1N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:46:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20538; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7C0-0003pW-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7C0-0003pT-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7EI-00039H-3G; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7Dn-00038i-Dl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:45:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20484 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7BU-0003pB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:08 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7BO-0003oq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:43:02 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5JLg4iC033686; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:42:04 GMT Message-Id: <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> To: Barry Shein cc: asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:20:20 EDT." <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:42:04 -0400 Barry, I sent a similar note to the nanog two days ago, with no response. I've no idea why this is of so little interest to so many people, I think its actually rather cool, and getting the terminating condition to converge to "soon" is worth working on. I just don't see why this should be done on a list that assumes that no temporal properties of spam systems exist. Eric Message-Id: <200306181530.h5IFU1iC048040@nic-naa.net> To: Miles Fidelman cc: nanog@merit.edu, brunner Subject: Re: OT: question re. the Volume of unwanted email (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:51:17 EDT." Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:30:01 -0400 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine While the question (metrics for operators, backbone-to-retail, spam) is current in the asrg list, the question is posed by (informally) by the (outgoing) secretary of the ICANN Registrar's Constituency to a listserv in the AOL playpen. The question is not current in the Registrar's Constituency, not is it likely to be, IMHO. There are several ways nanog'ers can take it, back to the AOL listserv, or over the fence to the irtf/asrg playpen, or yawn. There is one modality of spam that interests me technically, one that Bill touched on in his note in the "rr style scanning" thread, and Sean and others have touched on in the "use trojans" thread. Buffering up hosts (acquired via technical means), and expending hosts (sending until some terminal condition occurs) at a rate approximating the rate of buffer-fill. Anyone else interested drop me a line. Better still would be the peer reviewed paper in the open literature that answers all the questions I've thought of, and haven't thought of. Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:53:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20863 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLr3h14112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:53:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7L5-0003fX-5G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:53:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20855; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7Il-0003to-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:50:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7Il-0003tl-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:50:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7L2-0003cQ-Ra; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7KK-0003bA-Mx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:52:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20828 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7I1-0003t9-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:49:53 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7I0-0003t6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:49:52 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JLqBBv028341 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:52:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306192152.h5JLqBBv028341@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <3EF229A7.50002@azza.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:52:11 -0600 (MDT) > From: Selby Hatch > ... > I agree. We should not sacrifice any email types or formats to kill spam. > > Rather than limit the types of email that we receive, we should state > that we will only receive email from (1) a server that can be verified > as the one from where the email originated and (2) an individual or > entity who has received authorization from me to send me email, which > authorization can be verified upon receipt. That's a good policy for people for whom mail is only a recreation or hobby. It does not work for people whose bread and butter depends on receiving mail from strangers. There are also problems with (1). As stated it is impractical. For example, it outlaws smart hosts. It also doesn't do anything about the large quantity of spam that comes from spammers' own computers. There are also major practical problems with notion of "trust." Barry Shein's rant about criminal hijacking was only 53.2% right. It ignored the fact that a lot of spam advertises web pages on non-hijacked systems. Since few if any ISPs don't outlaw spamvertising, the reason spammers use proxies and relays can't be fears of having accounts terminated. Instead, they use criminal mechanisms to evade IP address and domain name blacklists. > By limiting the mime types, base64, html, etc., we limit a great deal of > useful features. The notion of outlawing MIME, Base64, HTML, etc among consenting MTAs and MUAs is red herring. No one can seriously propose eliminating them. However, you would cut down you spam load significantly if you rejected all mail with "Content-type: text/html" SMTP or MIME entity headers from strangers. 24672 or 73% of the 33807 spam in my 39 day rolling log of what has been sent toward my traps and filters has that mark. (It should be 40 days, but I had an attack of bad hands and eyes this morning.) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 17:57:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21110 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JLv4G14812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:57:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7Oy-0003qp-Lm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:57:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21093; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7Mf-0003yI-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:54:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7Me-0003yF-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:54:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7Ov-0003of-Ud; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7O9-0003kk-JR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:56:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21029 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7Lp-0003wz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:53:49 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7Lo-0003vd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:53:48 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 96FDF232D8; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:55:18 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030619215518.GB1093@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <20030619195743.GA1093@socialtools.net> <200306192021.h5JKLjvC003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306192021.h5JKLjvC003843@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:55:18 +0100 On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:21:45PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > I maintain a number of mailing lists which the members of various > > (non-technical) organizations use to communicate with each other. The > > volume of legitimate HTML email on these lists is quite high. > > Is it high because those people use bold, italic, and so forth or > because their MUAs send in HTML by default and they are not savvy > enough to fix that problem? I'm not sure, but my impression is that there's a fair amount of both. > What I find bizzare is the persistent equating of turning off HTML by > default with banning HTML. Fair enough. But even if all MUAs turned off HTML by default, spammers would continue to use HTML. Getting back to Gordon Peterson's proposal, he suggests a mechanism which would discourage the use of HTML and attachments, by forcing people to explicitly give others permission to send them those types of messages. This is meant to reduce the effectiveness of spam and address-harvesting techniques, and increase the effectiveness of content filters. Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of computer users have absolutely no idea what HTML is. As a sysadmin, I've tried to explain it to people, and their eyes glaze over. They also have trouble grasping the notion of 'plain text', i.e. a format that doesn't support all the things they normally think of as being available in 'text' (which for them means what's available in Microsoft Word). Once they understand the severe limitations of this wonderful 'plain text' format which I'm encouraging them to use, the first thing they want to know is how to make sure that they never use it. They *like* the fact that when you reply to a message, Outlook puts the quoted text in a different colour; they feel that it makes messages easier to read. To them, right angle-brackets look like something out of the Stone Age. Imagine Sally User, who is a customer service representative, or a freelancer. Her ISP starts offering the proposed permissions service. She has no idea what HTML is, but she gathers that it's something about reducing spam, so she accepts the default permissions, which are quite restrictive. Suddenly people who write to Sally find that their messages bounce, with an automated reply saying: 'Please send me a plain-text message asking for permission to send me HTML email or attachments.' These correspondents have no idea what this means (remember, they don't know what HTML is, either), and are put off by the fact that their email was rejected. So they simply take their business somewhere else, to another company or freelancer who doesn't reject their email. When Sally finds out, she's horrified, and quickly sets her permissions to accept anything from anyone. I suspect that most people, if they understood that restrictive permissions would cause legitimate messages to bounce, would opt for giving full permissions to all senders. As for making content filtering more effective, it would be easy for content filters to strip out all the HTML tags, comments, JavaScript, etc. from a message before filtering. No need to actually parse the HTML. (I'd be surprised if there weren't content filters that do this already.) Finally, even if this proposal worked exactly as planned, why couldn't spammers do just fine with ASCII? The Nigerian 419 spammers and their imitators have been using ASCII all along, and if they were a bit more clever about their wording, it would be quite difficult to filter. Again, I think this is all really beside the point. We're here to come up with a mechanism to stop unsolicited bulk email. Gordon's proposal is concerned with some superficial properties that much spam currently has, but doesn't deal with the core issues: 'unsolicited' and 'bulk'. Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 18:13:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22832 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JMD9420508 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7eX-0005Kc-6T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22753; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7cD-0004BH-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7cC-0004BD-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7eP-0005Gt-Fl; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7eI-0005GZ-EV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:12:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22718 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7by-0004Ap-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:30 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7by-0004Am-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:30 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19T7e0-0005C7-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:12:36 -0600 Message-ID: <3EF23577.6080008@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vernon Schryver , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <3EF229A7.50002@azza.com> <200306192152.h5JLqBBv028341@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <200306192152.h5JLqBBv028341@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:13:11 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: > > That's a good policy for people for whom mail is only a recreation or > hobby. It does not work for people whose bread and butter depends on > receiving mail from strangers. > (snip) > > The notion of outlawing MIME, Base64, HTML, etc among consenting MTAs > and MUAs is red herring. No one can seriously propose eliminating them. > > However, you would cut down you spam load significantly if you rejected > all mail with "Content-type: text/html" SMTP or MIME entity headers > from strangers. > How can you have it both ways? You either receive email from strangers or you don't. Those who want to recieve mail from strangers can simply not block any email, or continue to use filters. Those who don't, should be able to require verifiable identification through some means. If one's bread and butter dependes on receiving email from strangers, then they need an open mail box. Most (I believe a very high percentage) of email users don't depend on email from strangers for their living. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:02:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22831 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JMD9n20510 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7eX-0005Kd-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22755; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7cD-0004BK-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7cC-0004BE-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:10:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7eP-0005Gl-4o; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T7dm-0005G9-Dm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:12:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22661 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:12:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7bS-0004AV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:09:58 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T7bS-0004AS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:09:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 17780 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 15:12:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 15:12:18 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 22:12:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:10:40 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:37:45 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: asrg@ietf.org, X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:37:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > HTML email is also used by many companies for legitimate purposes. True enough, but they CERTAINLY don't need to send such HTML-burdened E-mail to users who have not indicated their ability to handle it, and their willingness to receive it. When they grant such permission to the sender, they can also update their sender-specific whitelist to also let it (for approved senders) pass through their ISP. >> 2) graphic-mode-text (likewise); > Same comment as above. Please give a good, compelling example of why a sender would need to send (without prior agreement with the intended recipient) unsolicited graphic-mode text. And in particular, things like cellphones, WebTV, pocketPCs maybe, SMS messaging units and so forth are probably not going to be able to handle such unsolicited mails. Senders should NOT blithely send such stuff to users not specifically authorizing such transmissions in advance. >> 3) links which purport to be one thing but where the actual hyperlink > in fact (and usually invisibly) points somewhere else; > Many spammers own their own domains and will not lose out from this. The issue is for example when a hyperlink DISPLAYS "www.paypal.com" but actually goes to "www.paypal.com@34.125.19.6" (or whatever) instead. I've received examples of such fraudulent E-mails. It will be less likely when the recipient has to VISIBLY copy-and-paste the (real) URL into their browser. They'll be far more suspicious of complicated/obscured URLs than when they can't readily see them. >> 4) scripting where the message displayed only can be viewed as a > result of >the computational process, again to make things difficult for content filters. >>Attachments (especially in unsolicited E-mails) tend to frequently contain >viruses, worms, "background music" that's actually a PIF or EXE file, and >things >of that sort. Getting attachments from someone who doesn't ordinarily send >those is a warning sign that it might well be malicious. > Not all attachments are bad. No, of course not. But it's VERY rare that anyone legitimately needs to send an attachment to some recipient without prior arrangement or consent. And with such prior approval, they CAN still send attachments without restriction. They just have to get permission (and approval) first. (And once that's done, they can presumably send them on an ongoing basis without any further hassle, either). >>By enabling a user to simply t-can any unexpected HTML-burdened (or >attachment-carrying) incoming message (and ideally as soon as it got to their >domain provider or ISP), spammers would be denied many of their most >cherished >and valuable tricks. Content filters would be far more useful and >efficient. >And much more of the remaining unsolicited spam that WOULD still be sent >would >be sent in plain ASCII text (knowing that sending unsolicited HTML E-mail was >the kiss of death...) meaning it would reduce wasted bandwidth for such >remaining spam mail net-wide by at least a factor of three to five. > Thus proposal addresses many of the tricks that are used by spammers TODAY. Yes, exactly. > As Vernon and many others mentioned on the list before spammers change very quickly and can adapt their practices very quickly as well. True enough, but it's surprising how many of those tricks merely exploit OTHER peculiarities of attachments, HTML, scripting (based on HTML) and encoding. I think those are the ENABLING technology for the great majority of their tricks and deceptions. It's POSSIBLE that they'll come up with more techniques, suitable for plain ASCII text E-mails (I've seen spams that display the chutzpah to urge their recipients to enable scripting so the spammer can abuse that... although I've not seen such in a while, so maybe it turned out to not be a very successful ruse). In any case, this technique will put a MAJOR crimp in their techniques, as well as come down hard on MOST viruses/worms/trojans.... then, I suppose, we can see what they come up with next, and deal with that as needed. :-) > This scheme would be just a band aid to block some forms of spam until spammers will figure out a way around it just like many other proposals.. Certainly, but I think it's a VERY cheap and effective bandaid which blocks THE GREAT MAJORITY of spam, and is effective virtually from day one of the implementation. I haven't seen anything as cheap, as readily implementable, and as effective, let alone an anti-spam technique that would also be so effective against virtually all viruses/worms/trojans. > Additionally, many of the "Nigerian Scams" arrive as plain ASCII emails already and this scheme will not stop them. Absolutely, but content filters usually can make pretty short work of most of those. The permission-based filter (by essentially blocking most of the tricks) make the remaining stuff pretty easy and straightforward for content filters to then take over the bulk of the residual. I don't think ANY of these will eliminate ALL fraudulent E-mails, but they'll certainly go a long way towards putting the kibosh on the all-too-familiar recurring ones. Again, we don't HAVE to eliminate ALL spam. We just have to give it a success rate below the threshold at which it is profitable and worthwhile for spammers... below that critical mass, much of the rest may well just wither away on its own. > Another concern with this sceme is the fact that email will go back to the dark ages with no support for attachments and no HTML support. There is FULL support for attachment and HTML support... but ONLY for senders who have made arrangements in advance with their recipients to authorize that. Some of us have preferred E-mail clients which don't support HTML anyhow... we should NEVER have that crap foisted upon us without wanting it. Again, remember that HTML-burdened E-mail is typically 3-5x bulkier (and thus more costly) all the way along the line... not to mention filling up my Inbox to overflowing 3-5x sooner than it would otherwise. That's a cost that is real and genuine, and I'm very unconvinced that (for MOST people) the incremental value of the information thus received is "worth it". But if it IS, it would be easy to authorize it, based on the senders you want to get it from. > This may increase people's use for email which is already under attack by spammers. Is the medicine as bitter as the problem? I certainly think not!!!! All you do is to grant such trusted senders the ability to send (or continue sending) the mail you trust them with. While blocking such risky/bulky/suspect stuff from everybody else. > Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital signatures are used. Again, there is no point in sending digital signatures before you've made arrangements with the recipient to be able to receive and deal with those. I don't think it's ever needed to send those unsolicited, as a primary contact with a given recipient. Once you've established a relationship with those recipients, they can enable such encoding from you and there's NO further restrictions for YOUR exchanges of those types of E-mails. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:03:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24516 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JN35p31921 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Qq-0008Im-Um for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24508; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8OW-0004SM-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:00:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8OW-0004SJ-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:00:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Qn-0008Gr-Bx; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Pq-0008GO-Qb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:02:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24474 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:01:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8NW-0004S7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:59:38 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8NP-0004S4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:59:34 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5JN1iDL009774 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:01:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306192301.h5JN1iDL009774@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:01:44 -0600 (MDT) > From: gep2@terabites.com > ... > Specifically, people willing to send plain ASCII text without encoding or >attachments (and without any HTML tags) would have their messages (by default, > at least) go through without any problems at all. This would enable those > wishing to receive unsolicited messages (say, from consumers of a company's >products, or from prospective new clients for my consulting services) to do so > without any problems. > > HTML, attachments, and encoded text HUGELY magnify not just the bulk and >bandwidth of E-mail, but also create VASTLY increased risk and opportunity for > obscuring mail content, malicious code, and other fraud and deception. These > features are simply not needed in basic E-mail (and that should include ALL > unsolicited E-mail). That's a very good way to make point. People sendng strangers any sort of unsolicited email that involves anything except plaintext ASCII are demonstrating either a severe lack of clues or politeness or that the languages they share with the recipient do not include any European languages. For obligate English speakers, either can be a good reason to discard mail unread. (Note the "can be a good reason." It won't be a good reason for some situations.) >Therefore, it makes sense in the "whitelist" to specify SPECIAL PRIVILEGES that >are granted by a recipient to familiar, trusted, and justified senders of those >kinds of costlier, riskier E-mail. Those untrusted/unknown/unfamiliar senders >who [ab]use these features without prearrangement to do that ought to find their >E-mail bounced or even just simply discarded. Yes! (Could you adjust your line length to less than 78? My ancient MUA doesn't rewrap lines, and I think it shouldn't. I control my own line lengths by piping paragraphs through `fmt` as I edit them with `vi`.) > ... > One nice thing about what I propose is that it can be implemented at the > recipient ISP ... Yes, but until ISPs can tell users who complain "run the Netscape or Microsoft auto-update mechanism", they will not and cannot do such filtering by default. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ] From: gep2@terabites.com ] ... ] > Someone earlier suggested that free DNS systems such as dyndns.org would ] provide RMX functionality for such cases. ] ] Yes, but as I understand it they won't do much if anything for those of us who ] are still behind NAT and router, since domain names mapping to a nonroutable ] 192.168.n.n address seem pretty pointless... am I wrong? :-) I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Today "NAT" boxes usually include port mapping. You configure such a box to rewrite and forward incoming packets for TCP port 25 to some port at one of your RFC 1918 addresses. NAT is a great evil, but it can be made to handle a few cases including FTP and SMTP servers. The only significant problems with using an SMTP server behind a NAT box on a dynamic IP address are that: - dynamic DNS does not work very well when your address not only can change but does change and if your definition of "work very well" is what might be called "professional grade" - your dynamic IP address is likely to be ratted out to blacklists of dynamic address by its reverse DNS name or your ISP. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:07:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24584 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JN75Q32656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Uj-0008Ud-87 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24558; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8SP-0004T3-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:04:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8SN-0004T0-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:04:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Uf-0008Qv-Bo; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8U3-0008OB-Cb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:06:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24549 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:06:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8Rj-0004Ss-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:59 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8Ri-0004Sp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:03:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 27465 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 16:06:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 16:06:18 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 23:06:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:04:54 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:31:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:31:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Vernon Schryver wrote: >> The overwhelmingly vast majority of the use of HTML is > at best a waste of bandwidth and CPU cycles. > This is, at best, a representation of a personal, subjective opinion. Maybe so, but let me stand as one who FIRMLY agrees with it. :-) > The reality is that there is great demand for "rich text" messaging and there always has been. Perhaps, but RARELY among those who: 1) appreciate the cost differential, and 2) understand what it means. The great majority of HTML-burdened E-mail is sent by clueless AOL, Hotmail and Outlook users who don't even realize that that's what they're sending. Even if the SENDER "likes" it, many recipients don't if for no other reason than that their inbox fills up and overflows 3-5x sooner than it would otherwise... and that can create MONUMENTAL problems for recipients, cancelled mailing list subscriptions, and so forth. At a MINIMUM, the sender should clear such formatting with recipients FIRST, before just presuming that it's okay. > There are many clear indicators that large numbers of people like to both send and receive HTML formatted messages. I don't think that's true at all, and in particular not for people who realize the implications of it. > As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email messaging capabilities. If they want "high quality" e-mail there are a whole variety of options, going well beyond HTML. One is to send .DOC files (which can be read with freeware viewers), another is Adobe PDF files. In any case, such mail does not have to be sent from unknown/untrusted/unfamiliar senders. It's NOT a good idea to send such stuff until you've verified that your recipients are prepared (and willing!) to receive such higher-cost, reduced-compatibility messages. And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. > If anything, the demand for such a capability has increased over time. Mostly, the "demand" for such features have come from perversely creative spammers who use these features to deceive/mislead/obscure. > It is no more reasonable to demand that the world accept that email should not contain rendering information That's NOT AT ALL what we're proposing. We're saying that such E-mail is NOT suitable for an INITIAL, unsolicited contact. Once a relationship is established between a sender and a recipient, the recipient can enable HTML (etc) for that sender IF THEY WISH TO. Meanwhile, unsolicited, UNWANTED, UNTRUSTED users of those technologies are quickly and easily sent packing (which is, after all, the goal). > than it would be for some religious sect to demand that we not "pollute" the walls of our homes with art. Our challenge should be to figure out how to give the users what they want without exposing them to unnecessary risks. What the USERS want is to block spam and malicious content (viruses/worms/trojans) coming from people they don't want to hear from. Users wanting HTML or attachments from indicated senders could enable that easily. Perhaps (implementation at specific ISPs permitting) they could even opt to open back up to (just that recipient) receive attachments/HTML/encoding from just anybody, but then they don't have much cause to complain about getting the spam that they're then putting out the welcome mat for. I think that most users would be DELIGHTED with the tremendous reduction in spam count and volume that my solution would yield, and would find that the minor effort to re-enable trusted senders would be well worth the huge benefit. [I don't deny that SOME users are going to be HUGELY annoyed by widespread adoption of my proposal... but that group is going to be mostly spammers, abusers, and virus authors, and I think we can agree that those are precisely the users for whom we don't mind making their life a lot more difficult. :-) ] > If the problem is a difficult one to solve, it isn't because what the users want is some that is not "legitimage," rather, it simply means that we're not being creative enough in defining solutions. I think the solution as I'm proposing would be cheap, easily implemented, HIGHLY effective, and with minimum-to-no impact on most users. It would GREATLY reduce the costs to ISPs (and thus to users) of spam and wasteful HTML-burdened e-mail while still allowing them to get basically everything they want to receive. >> There is far more use of HTML mail to violate privacy > with such as "web bugs" than legitimate use. > I don't believe this to be true. I get loads of "legitimate" HTML mail every day. Some people probably do, but rarely do they need to receive it from unknown/untrusted people UNSOLICITED. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:09:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24673 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JN94p01729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8We-0000Ro-8U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24631; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8UJ-0004UE-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:06:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8UI-0004U4-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:06:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Wb-0000LC-Do; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Vx-0000KI-HQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:08:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24609 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:08:16 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8Td-0004Ts-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:05:57 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8Tc-0004Tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:05:56 -0400 Received: (cpmta 27705 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 16:08:16 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 16:08:16 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 23:08:16 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:07:33 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:34:37 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] base64 encoded mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:34:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital > > signatures are used. >> That is entirely mistaken. You might want to ensure that sender and >recipient agree on whether to sign the encoded or plaintext versions >of the message, but that's all. > In the scheme proposed by Art Pollard, a copy of the public key would be included with the signed message. Common format for public key certificates use base 64 encoded, outright ban of all base-64 email would be a problem for this. The point I was trying to make is that outright ban on ALL base-64 email is not a simple as it sounds. There are legit applications that use it and such banning approach would have to take them into account. I wouldn't propose BANNING base64 encoding... not at all. But I don't think there's much if any point in including it in E-mails if the recipient isn't ready to accept it. If a recipient is prepared to accept base64 encoding from specific senders (those for which they have a public key, for instance) then it's easy enough to turn base64 permission on for those trusted senders. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:09:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24688 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JN95s01759 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Wf-0000SI-2n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24637; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8UJ-0004UA-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:06:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8UI-0004U3-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:06:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Wb-0000Ki-1o; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8Vm-0000KB-3i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:08:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24606 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8TS-0004Tm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:05:46 -0400 Received: from pcp796808pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net ([68.48.97.27] helo=emperor.nrockv01.md.comcast.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8TR-0004TN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:05:45 -0400 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.nrockv01.md.comcast.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JN7Vi26931 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.4 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030618213131.GC12893@socialtools.net> Reply-To: Jim Bauer From: Jim Bauer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Reverse DNS Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 18-Jun-2003 Benjamin Geer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:56:04PM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >> There are a number of us advanced/small users with home offices who presently >> run our own outgoing SMTP mail server, behind a router using NAT. Not all >> (valid, legitimate!) outgoing SMTP servers have fixed/permanent IP addresses. > > If you have dynamic IP addresses, why run your own MTA? It's no use > for incoming mail, and for outgoing mail you could use your ISP's MTA. I don't trust my service provider to properly handle outgoing mail. I see the countless problem with their pop server and even basic Internet connectivity. IMO they have amply demonstrated that they are not compentent. Alternatives? What alternatives? They are a monopoly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:15:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24943 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JNF5p04321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:15:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8cT-00017c-I4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:15:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24918; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8aB-0004Z6-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:12:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8aA-0004Z3-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:12:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8cO-00015k-Qq; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:15:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8bk-00012w-Ql for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:14:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24875 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:14:17 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8ZS-0004Yf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:11:58 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8ZR-0004Yc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:11:57 -0400 Received: (cpmta 15317 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 16:14:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 16:14:18 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 23:14:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:13:24 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:40:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:40:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML messages in order to kill spam. We don't sacrifice those AT ALL... ONLY the ability to send such [supposedly] "legit" HTML-burdened messages UNSOLICITED, to those who have specifically set their E-mail accounts to NOT receive such mail from unsolicited/unknown/untrusted senders. WHOSE SUPPOSED RIGHTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT HERE, ANYHOW? I think it makes sense to put priority rights to those who are paying the bills... and that's the recipients. They should have the power to turn off such bulky and unwanted crap, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they typically are trying to work around limited-size ISP-provided inboxes and to keep them from overflowing and bouncing the mail they DO want to receive. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 19:25:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25140 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5JNP9306822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:25:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8mD-0001lx-E8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:25:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25124; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8ju-0004dF-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:22:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8ju-0004dC-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:22:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8m6-0001fh-0y; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:25:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19T8lP-0001f8-Er for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:24:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25107 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:24:16 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8j7-0004cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:21:57 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19T8j6-0004ch-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:21:56 -0400 Received: (cpmta 9161 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 16:24:16 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 16:24:16 -0700 X-Sent: 19 Jun 2003 23:24:16 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:23:32 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Permission-based antispam-antivirus solutions Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:50:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I maintain a number of mailing lists which the members of various (non-technical) organizations use to communicate with each other. The volume of legitimate HTML email on these lists is quite high. In that case, obviously it would be straightforward to the recipients on your lists to enable HTML-burdened messages coming from those relevant lists. > Programmers and sysadmins, and people who started using email before MIME was introduced, tend to dislike HTML email. Other people see the ability to use boldface and italics as normal features of any text-editing environment (which they consider their MUA to be). They would find the idea of suppressing those features simply bizarre. When writing a document that is going to be printed, whether we use Microsoft Word or LaTeX, we can put the title of a book in italics; people have come to expect that the same is true when they write email. If you want FULL text-handling features, then you can send LaTeX or Word (or whatever) documents as attachments (and thus enable attachments) for those people you trust to send you that kind of material. But for most users, they don't want to receive a 60K attached .DOC file which contains a 1500-byte unsolicited spam message, and where the primary advantage of the format is that the .DOC file confuses the user's content filter set up to block spam. Again, the only people who would have a problem under my scheme are those who HAVE NOT MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE USER to receive mail of that sort. Getting permission to send it would allow future exchanges with those correspondents to continue the same way they always have. > As for attachments, nowadays, many people have digital cameras and high-speed Internet connections, and like to send photos to their friends via email. It is no use telling these people that 'sending large attachments is poor netiquette'; they and their friends have the requisite bandwidth, and it doesn't bother them. Again, no problem once they've made arrangements with their recipients to receive such stuff. Just don't send it unsolicited, without permission, and everything is fine. > My own view is that these issues are red herrings. Spam is spam whether it consists of an ASCII text file or a JPEG. Effective anti-spam measures should stop spam regardless of its format. Would be nice, although I propose that NOTHING I've seen would comprise a silver bullet that would ACTUALLY stop 100% of all spam before it was sent. Do you know of one? What I am proposing, though, would put a BIG dent in it, cheaply, and without requiring a redesign of the whole Internet E-mail system. AND it would eliminate the great majority of worms/viruses/trojans in the process, too. Do you know anything else that would be so effective, so cheap, so easily and quickly implemented, and with as little disruption to ALL established legitimate users of the Net? Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 21:21:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27961 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K1L7W32148 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:21:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TAaR-0008MR-2V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:21:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27945; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TAY7-0005Ih-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:18:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TAY6-0005Ie-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:18:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TAaK-0008Kv-Sv; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TAaD-0008Kk-GJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:20:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27938 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TAXu-0005IW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:18:30 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TAXs-0005IT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:18:29 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5K1Kncd012783 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:20:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306200120.h5K1Kncd012783@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <20030619215518.GB1093@socialtools.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:20:49 -0600 (MDT) > From: Benjamin Geer > > Is it high because those people use bold, italic, and so forth or > > because their MUAs send in HTML by default and they are not savvy > > enough to fix that problem? > > I'm not sure, but my impression is that there's a fair amount of both. Why don't you test that impression? This is a question that can be measure, and I think makes sense. How much of that mail involves real formatting? If you choose 50 messsages at random, how many use HTML and of those, how many use any real text formating? (e.g. intentional use of or as opposed to noise added by MUAs to all HTML messages they create) If you'll take bets, put my money on 80% or more using HTML and less than 1% using any real text formating. > ... > Fair enough. But even if all MUAs turned off HTML by default, spammers > would continue to use HTML. You say that as if it were a bad thing. On the contrary, if spammers label their stuff as spam, it becomes harmless to all practical purposes (screams of rage from spammer fighters not withstanding). > Getting back to Gordon Peterson's proposal, he suggests a mechanism which > would discourage the use of HTML and attachments, by forcing people to > explicitly give others permission to send them those types of messages. > This is meant to reduce the effectiveness of spam and address-harvesting > techniques, and increase the effectiveness of content filters. Yes. > Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of computer users have absolutely > no idea what HTML is. As a sysadmin, I've tried to explain it to people, > and their eyes glaze over. .... Yes, but that cuts both ways. I bet most users have no clue how to tell IE or Netscape how to make a word bold or red. As I test, I just now tried to get Netscape 7.02 on XP to make a word bold in a mail message. I cannot find any sign of any way to do such a thing. I assume there is a way, but that I can't find it suggests that your Sally End User might not use it very often. (My first blush with computerized text formating predated my first encounter with the Internet on the console of TIP-25 (DOCB) in 1972. I also wrote one of NBI's text processing systems, so I flatter myself in thinking I'm not entirely adverse to fancy text.) > ... Once they understand the severe limitations > of this wonderful 'plain text' format which I'm encouraging them to use, the > first thing they want to know is how to make sure that they never use it. So turn off HTML until the the user makes some text bold or purple, and then silently and automatically switch to HTML. > They *like* the fact that when you reply to a message, Outlook puts the > quoted text in a different colour; they feel that it makes messages easier > to read. To them, right angle-brackets look like something out of the Stone > Age. You are confusing presentation with encoding. There are MUAs that recognize various > markings and colorize quoted text. I think they're garish and distracting, but there's no disputing tastes. > ... > I suspect that most people, if they understood that restrictive permissions > would cause legitimate messages to bounce, would opt for giving full > permissions to all senders. That is contradicts experience reported by people running retail ISPs. Many ISPs report almost all of their customers are happy with single digit false positive rates for 80% reductions in spam loads. I think 80% is a modest improvement and that 100 times smaller false positives rates of 0.1% are at the high end of the tolerable range, but I'm probably not typical of retail ISP customers. Notice also that most proposed or existing spam defenses that people advocate have single digit false positive rates. As I keep saying there are those of us whose livelihoods involve email and who won't tolerate 0.2% false positives and there are the 100,000,000's of the rest of the Internet for whom not receiving spam is more important than not hearing from a long lost friend. > As for making content filtering more effective, it would be easy for content > filters to strip out all the HTML tags, comments, JavaScript, etc. from a > message before filtering. No need to actually parse the HTML. (I'd be > surprised if there weren't content filters that do this already.) That's wrong in two ways. What I consider reasonable filters (e.g. the DCC) already strip HTML tags and so forth, but that turns out to be insufficient. For reasons you might guess if you knew that the DCC is my hobby, I'd rather not say more to strangers. > Finally, even if this proposal worked exactly as planned, why couldn't > spammers do just fine with ASCII? The Nigerian 419 spammers and their > imitators have been using ASCII all along, and if they were a bit more > clever about their wording, it would be quite difficult to filter. That's half right and half wrong. Spammers need to appear as legitimate as possible to their targets and to law enforcement. Without HTML tricks to hide various things, all of their stuff is in the open and plainly visible to your Sally End Users. Even your Sally probably discards a Nigerian 419 spam after reading the first 5 words and she may delete unread mail with obvious "hash busters" in subjects. > Again, I think this is all really beside the point. We're here to come up > with a mechanism to stop unsolicited bulk email. Gordon's proposal is > concerned with some superficial properties that much spam currently has, but > doesn't deal with the core issues: 'unsolicited' and 'bulk'. On the contrary, "solicited" is related to "consent," and Gordon's proposal is all about "consent." As for bulk, I know of exactly one idea with any hope of detecting that aspect of incoming mail, and it is certainly not perfect, 100% accurate, or invulnerable to spammer tricks. That idea is that as a message arrives or is about to be presented to you, your MTA or MUA should ask a clearinghouse if substantially identical messages have been seen elsewhere. If the answer is "yes, 12345 of them," then your MTA or MUA can know it is a "bulk" message check your list of approved senders or whitelist. For scaling, the clearinghouse should be distributed. There are other aspects involving scaling, privacy, security against various attacks that need to be addressed. When you've done that, you'll have a direct competitor to the Distributed Checksum Clearinghouses or the DCC. See http://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/graphs/index.cgi Again, I realize that the DCC is far from perfect. That is one rason why I've talked about it far less than other things here, and less than other people have talked about their favorite mechanisms. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:08:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29357 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K288m10334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBJw-0002gb-18 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29340; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBHc-0005eJ-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:05:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBHb-0005eG-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:05:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBJp-0002ee-C4; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBJm-0002eT-FY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:07:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29337 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBHS-0005eC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:05:34 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBHQ-0005e9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:05:33 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619220410.00b581e8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Permission-based antispam-antivirus solutions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:07:29 -0400 At 06:50 PM 6/19/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >[..] >Do you know anything else that would be so effective, so cheap, so easily and >quickly implemented, and with as little disruption to ALL established >legitimate >users of the Net? This proposal does not seem to be able to be "easily and quickly implemented, and with as little disruption to ALL established legitimate users of the Net?": 1. As Vernon pointed out, most MUAs are sending out HTML formated mail by default right now. Even if you turn off those settings, it will take a lot of time for those changes to propogate through the Net. Now assuming that at least 80% of end users run Windows, and the default client, Outlook Express, is used by most of them (or Outlook/Exchange in corporate environment), that's a lot of end users. If you will start implementing these changes, most regular end users will be affected. How many users of the Internet are these end users? 2. How does blocking attachments help solve the spam problem? The only benefit I see so far is anti-virus, and that is not an issue for ASRG. 3. This proposal is based on an assumption that most spam is HTML based. However, I personally get a lot of spam not HTML based and just plain text. How long will it take until all spam becomes simple text? HTML, base64, etc. blocking is already partially being implemented by some filters, SpamAssasin, especially. This proposal is more of a suggestion list for filtering than a full fledged proposal. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:10:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29558 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K2A4W11234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBLn-0002v7-Vc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29483; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBJT-0005hE-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:07:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBJS-0005h8-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:07:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBLl-0002ox-Dw; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBL3-0002lz-45 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:09:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29386 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBIj-0005f0-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:06:53 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBIg-0005ex-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:06:51 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619220813.00bac208@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Selby Hatch , Asrg@ietf.org, "Eric Dean" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Reverse DNS In-Reply-To: <3EF223E2.9000205@azza.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619142101.00bd4580@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619142101.00bd4580@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:08:41 -0400 At 02:58 PM 6/19/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>At 11:50 AM 6/19/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: >> >>>There are other ways to authenticate an email with a server. I have >>>suggested one such method. It requires no DNS and could be used for >>>static and dynamic IP addresses. If you have the IP address of the >>>originating email, it is possible to trace that back to some entity even >>>if it's dialup. The method is found at: >>> >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05393.html >>> >>> >>>and goes as follows: >>> >>>Sender authentication should be applied. A header called Sender-Auth or >>>Sender-Verification will be inserted into the message by the sending >>>server. It would consist of a delimited string containing the IP >>>address, server identification, and a timestamp. The string would be >>>preceded by the result of a function that was applied to that string as >>>it was sent by the originating server. A delimiter would separate the >>>function result from the string. The function would be implemented by >>>the server administrator and would be unique for that server or set of >>>servers. >>> >>>A protocol would be employed such that a receiving server could request >>>that the originating server verify that the Sender-Auth header is >>>consistent. The originating server would be required to apply it's >>>function to the string as sent by the requesting server and then return >>>the result. The receiving server would compare the returned function >>>result with the result in the Sender-Auth header and if they match, the >>>sending server is authentic. >> >>This basically would be Challenge/Response for mail servers, instead of >>C/R for email addresses. > >True. And doesn't most spam originate from servers that they are trying to >keep unidentified? This may fit within the framework of the CRI protocol that Eric Dean is working on. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:13:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29797 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K2D2212533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:13:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBOg-0003G4-H2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29753; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBMM-0005mF-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:38 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBMM-0005mC-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBOe-0003D3-Vm; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBNm-0003Cb-80 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:12:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29727 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBLS-0005lj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:09:42 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBLM-0005lP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:09:40 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221022.00b6acf8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:11:42 -0400 At 06:40 PM 6/19/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML messages >in order to kill spam. > >We don't sacrifice those AT ALL... ONLY the ability to send such [supposedly] >"legit" HTML-burdened messages UNSOLICITED, to those who have specifically >set >their E-mail accounts to NOT receive such mail from >unsolicited/unknown/untrusted senders. > >WHOSE SUPPOSED RIGHTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT HERE, ANYHOW? The users, as stated in the charter (emphasis added): "The work of the ASRG will also include investigating techniques to evaluate the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions. Usefulness is described by the effectiveness, accuracy, and incentive structure of the system. The cost of the system refers to the burden imposed on USERS and operators of the communications system. " >I think it makes sense to put priority rights to those who are paying the >bills... and that's the recipients. They should have the power to turn >off such >bulky and unwanted crap, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they typically are >trying to work around limited-size ISP-provided inboxes and to keep them from >overflowing and bouncing the mail they DO want to receive. Your underlying assumption is that spam will persist being HTML encoded. I do not believe that it will take spammers too long to switch to plain ASCII. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:16:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29897 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K2G3O13411 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBRb-0003UE-1K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29884; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBPH-0005nl-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:13:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBPG-0005ni-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:13:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBRY-0003RE-SI; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBQd-0003R1-Sx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:15:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29854 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBOJ-0005nR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:12:39 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBOG-0005nJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:12:37 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:14:22 -0400 At 05:20 PM 6/19/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >Executive Summary: IT'S THE CRIME, STUPID! > >I think these discussions are entirely missing the meat (heh) of the >spam problem. > >The problem is, to paraphrase Crazy Eddie*: > > How do they do it? volume! Volume!! VOLUME!!! > >And how do spammers achieve volume? > > crimes! Crimes!! CRIMES!!! >[..] > >Fraud and illegality are a spammers' stock in trade. >[..] >Ok, what to do isn't easy or obvious, BUT THAT'S ALL we really have to >do and these guys are out of business, for all intents and purposes. The legal aspect is not within the scope of our group and even if it was, there isn't much we can do anyway. So what technical solutions in this area are possible? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:17:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29946 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K2H1O14610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBSX-0003nZ-P3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:17:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29923; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBQD-0005oH-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:14:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBQD-0005oE-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:14:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBSW-0003kZ-Dy; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:17:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBSB-0003Xu-DC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29913 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBPr-0005o5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:14:15 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBPp-0005o2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:14:14 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221545.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:16:16 -0400 Can you explain to the group what you have in mind? Yakov At 05:42 PM 6/19/2003 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: >Barry, > >I sent a similar note to the nanog two days ago, with no response. > >I've no idea why this is of so little interest to so many people, >I think its actually rather cool, and getting the terminating >condition to converge to "soon" is worth working on. > >I just don't see why this should be done on a list that assumes >that no temporal properties of spam systems exist. > >Eric > >Message-Id: <200306181530.h5IFU1iC048040@nic-naa.net> >To: Miles Fidelman >cc: nanog@merit.edu, brunner >Subject: Re: OT: question re. the Volume of unwanted email (fwd) >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:51:17 EDT." > >Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:30:01 -0400 >From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > >While the question (metrics for operators, backbone-to-retail, spam) is >current in the asrg list, the question is posed by (informally) by the >(outgoing) secretary of the ICANN Registrar's Constituency to a listserv >in the AOL playpen. The question is not current in the Registrar's >Constituency, not is it likely to be, IMHO. > >There are several ways nanog'ers can take it, back to the AOL listserv, >or over the fence to the irtf/asrg playpen, or yawn. > >There is one modality of spam that interests me technically, one that >Bill touched on in his note in the "rr style scanning" thread, and >Sean and others have touched on in the "use trojans" thread. Buffering >up hosts (acquired via technical means), and expending hosts (sending >until some terminal condition occurs) at a rate approximating the rate >of buffer-fill. > >Anyone else interested drop me a line. Better still would be the peer >reviewed paper in the open literature that answers all the questions >I've thought of, and haven't thought of. > >Eric > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:28:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00114 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K2S8L16756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:28:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBdI-0004MB-KW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:28:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00106; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBax-0005qk-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:25:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBax-0005qh-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:25:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBdA-0004KI-K9; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:28:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TBci-0004K2-8H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:27:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00099 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBaN-0005qX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:25:08 -0400 Received: from kcmso1.att.com ([192.128.133.69] helo=kcmso1.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TBaN-0005qU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:25:07 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h5K2Qw6V006425 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:26:58 -0500 Received: from att.com (unknown[135.210.81.33](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20030620022522gw100r9mole> (Authid: tony); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: <3EF270D0.9020001@att.com> From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] base64 encoded mail References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:26:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gep2@terabites.com wrote: >>>>Also, blocking base64 encoding would block email schemes where digital >>>signatures are used. >>That is entirely mistaken. You might want to ensure that sender and >>recipient agree on whether to sign the encoded or plaintext versions >>of the message, but that's all. > > I wouldn't propose BANNING base64 encoding... not at all. But I don't think > there's much if any point in including it in E-mails if the recipient isn't > ready to accept it. If a recipient is prepared to accept base64 encoding from > specific senders (those for which they have a public key, for instance) then > it's easy enough to turn base64 permission on for those trusted senders. IMHO, blocking an email message because it's base64 encoded is misguided. Here's a case in point: There are gateways out there that will switch encodings on messages. If a message is sent through a gateway that understands 8-bit messaging, and it is then passed through to another system which only allows 7-bit, it's got to be downgraded. Downgrading to base64 is perfectly reasonable for such a gateway. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 22:59:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00892 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K2x6r22195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:59:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TC7G-0005lu-9F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:59:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00864; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TC4v-00061j-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:56:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TC4v-00061g-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:56:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TC7A-0005k2-Q0; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TC6G-0005ji-41 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00854 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TC3v-00061Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:55:39 -0400 Received: from mail2.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.230] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TC3u-00061W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:55:39 -0400 Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 09:57:21 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.120.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.120]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 09:57:21 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:57:20 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This issue is well documented in _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 23:06:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01210 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K366k25493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCE2-0006d6-9n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01178; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCBh-000674-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:03:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCBh-000670-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:03:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCDy-0006Zt-2u; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCDY-0006ZT-QQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01171 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCBE-00066l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:03:12 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCBD-00066e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:03:11 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mheys@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5K35Vj7001788; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:31 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00795; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16114.31226.988361.524483@world.std.com> To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> References: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 19, 2003 at 17:42 brunner@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine) wrote: > Barry, > > I sent a similar note to the nanog two days ago, with no response. > > I've no idea why this is of so little interest to so many people, > I think its actually rather cool, and getting the terminating > condition to converge to "soon" is worth working on. There are two major causes of spam at this point in time: 1. Lawlessness and lack of enforcement of existing laws. I'll admit that I'd sympathize with anyone in law enforcement saddled with this problem; where does one start? Well, first of all, where we have caught and investigated spammers like Carmack and Ralsky it shouldn't be that hard to take logs of spam they sent and show that they illegally used others' computers to send it (assuming they did.) Either they had rights to the IPs it spewed from, or they didn't. That should be a chargeable offense. Second, I'd honeypot them with the SWAT teams ready to go. They scan for these infected hosts (or the hosts report to them when the infection self-installs.) This can all be simulated with only modest effort and arrests made. But the interesting part of that is not the honeypotting, it's the prosecution. One needs the backing of a competent prosecuting body or else it's all just an academic exercise. 2. Microsoft operating systems which continue to be flawed and vulnerable to viruses. Now that viruses have emerged (Jeem, Proxy-Guzu, sobig.a) which can make a computer (or, more to the point, millions of computers) an unwitting weapon against the entire net this problem has to be taken more seriously by Microsoft. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 23:09:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01275 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K393427603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:09:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCGt-0007B8-GK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:09:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01267; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCEY-00067v-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCEY-00067s-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:06:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCGr-000782-6t; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCFz-00077a-GP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:08:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01236 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCDf-00067a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:43 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCDc-00067X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:05:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619230742.00bac208@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" , "asrg@ietf.org" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:07:43 -0400 At 09:57 AM 6/20/2003 +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: >This issue is well documented in Interesting read. However, how can we mandate filtering of HTML mail if many MUAs use it by default? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 19 23:37:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02185 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K3bCe01377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:37:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TCi7-0000M8-UL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:37:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02160; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCfo-0006LH-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:34:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCfo-0006LE-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:34:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TChx-00006D-AI; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TChv-00005e-Ir for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:36:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02156 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCfc-0006LA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:34:36 -0400 Received: from mail1.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.229] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TCfb-0006L7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:34:36 -0400 Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 10:36:23 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.120.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.120]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 10:36:13 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:36:21 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:07:02 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Interesting read. However, how can we mandate filtering of HTML mail if >many MUAs use it by default? You bounce it with a diagnostic message telling the user to turn off HTML and provide a link to instructions how to do so e.g. the cited article. I ALWAYS inform correspondents and list-posters to turn of HTML and usually receive profuse thanks for doing so. The senders had no idea how they were abusing their correspondents. Basically we are in an educational period where we have to undo the damage done by some bad decisions by Netscape and MS. The consequences are now apparent re HTML. Even MS realizes the error of its ways (well, some of them anyway) and is now turning off some default security threats in its new builds. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 00:22:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03240 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K4M8F11341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:22:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TDPc-0002wq-NH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:22:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03225; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TDNJ-0006bd-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:19:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TDNI-0006ba-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:19:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TDPW-0002ud-Qy; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:22:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TDP5-0002im-Ne for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:21:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03203 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TDMm-0006az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:19:12 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TDMl-0006a9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:19:11 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2466136; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:21:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: gep2@terabites.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:21:09 -0400 At 6:31 PM -0500 6/19/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > The reality is that there is great demand for "rich text" >messaging and there always has been. > >Perhaps, but RARELY among those who: > > 1) appreciate the cost differential, and > > 2) understand what it means. Which pretty much means only the techie community, and a small proportion of that. This is a pointless discussion. The vast majority of end-user email is HTML. They use bold and italics in all their other applications. They embed cutesy images in all their other applications. Why shouldn't they in email? Cost differential? They really don't care. And then of course there is commercial, requested email, which is virtually 100% HTML. Let's discuss something more feasible--like replacing SMTP with a new system overnight. >And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk >is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as >plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. Sure. I'll just tell my father that when he wants to emphasize something he shouldn't hit Apple-B, he should pay his ISP for a web host and learn how to publish on it. Or were you instead proposing that everyone in the world upgrade their email client to something that uses "pull" instead of "push"? Please can we be serious? A lot of anti-spam people spend way too much time looking at spam, and not nearly enough time looking at real email. The only real email they see is from other techies. So they assume that when there is a difference between spam and their real email--the difference is something specific to spam. In fact, for the average non-techie, spam looks an awful lot like their real email. (That shouldn't be terribly surprising if you stop and think for a minute.) Do you want numbers? I have a collection of non-spam email sent by average, clueless users to their friends, and inadvertently cc'd to me via wormalert@somewhere.com. Messages are over the past year. Total Messages: 98,111 Total text/plain or no content-type: 26,235 Plain text is accounting for 26% of good email in that sample of the non-techie community. Want to shudder? 34% was multipart/mixed and 29% was multipart/alternative. The anti-html-email war was lost years ago. It's right up there with "html is for describing structure, not appearance". I used to fight it too, but it's time to move on. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 01:19:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05226 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K5JCS22659 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:19:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TEIp-0005tO-Si for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:19:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05211; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEGW-000792-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:16:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEGV-00078z-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:16:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TEIf-0005rT-1U; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TEId-0005rI-RU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:18:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05200 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:18:58 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEGK-00078m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:16:36 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEGJ-00078j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:16:35 -0400 Received: (cpmta 25435 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 22:18:56 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 22:18:56 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 05:18:56 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:17:18 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:44:23 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] "Useful features" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:44:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We should not sacrifice any email types or formats to kill spam. We don't have to do that. I propose merely that we encourage the blocking of "spam-friendly" features by default in E-mail coming from senders that haven't previously arranged to send a given recipient e-mail of that type. Once they're known to the recipient, and the recipient agrees to accept bulkier and more "fully-featured" e-mail from that sender, no problem. But one should NEVER send such stuff unannounced to recipients, since those recipients may not wish it, or may not be prepared to receive it. > Rather than limit the types of email that we receive, We're only proposing limiting what can be sent from UNTRUSTED SENDERS that we HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED. > we should state that we will only receive email from (1) a server that can be verified as the one from where the email originated So the spam comes from a server that is 'legitimately' owned (today, maybe not tomorrow) by a spammer. Can you say, "Musical servers", boys and girls? > ...and (2) an individual or entity who has received authorization from me to send me email, which authorization can be verified upon receipt. That's an 'ordinary' whitelist, which is problematical for companies which by the nature of their business are going to receive a large amount of communications from people they haven't heard from before. (ConsumerRelations@domain.com for instance). > By limiting the mime types, base64, html, etc., we limit a great deal of useful features. But NONE OF THOSE need to be, nor should be, used in INITIAL communications with someone you haven't written to before. And once you have, and 'need' to send bulky "pretty" mail, presumably you can negotiate that 'need' with the intended recipient so they open that window for you. But the RECIPIENT needs to retain control over that. Once the recipient agrees, there IS NO limitation to what you can send to them, unless THEY choose to leave that restriction in place for you (and they MUST maintain the right to do that). [It IS *their* mailbox after all that you're consuming with your largely pointless bulk!] Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 01:37:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05921 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K5b4G26585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TEa8-0006ui-53 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05879; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEXo-0007Jd-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:34:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEXn-0007Ja-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:34:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TEa4-0006sC-OI; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TEa4-0006rg-2d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:37:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05876 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:36:58 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEXk-0007JX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:34:36 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TEXj-0007JU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:34:35 -0400 Received: (cpmta 5407 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 22:36:56 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 22:36:56 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 05:36:56 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:36:18 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:03:23 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Cutting down spam load Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:03:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The notion of outlawing MIME, Base64, HTML, etc among consenting MTAs and MUAs is red herring. No one can seriously propose eliminating them. > However, you would cut down you spam load significantly if you rejected all mail with "Content-type: text/html" SMTP or MIME entity headers from strangers. 24672 or 73% of the 33807 spam in my 39 day rolling log of what has been sent toward my traps and filters has that mark. (It should be 40 days, but I had an attack of bad hands and eyes this morning.) It's actually even better than that... since the spam which is HTML-burdened is [each] usually 3-5x (or MORE, oftentimes) bigger than spam which isn't. So you'd block (in this case) 73% of the spam MESSAGES but probably 90% or more of spam BYTES by this *simple*, easily implemented strategy. If you have good enough log statistics, check to see what percentage of spam BYTES would actually be blocked by taking out messages containing text/html message type indications in entity headers. It would also be interesting to see how many spams (and percentages of overall spam BYTES) contain attachments (message text as JPG/GIF images, or (not used so often recently) .DOC files or whatever. My approach would end up truncating the great majority of those, too. AND, don't forget, another big benefit is blocking NOT ONLY JUST spam, but also viruses/worms/trojans. In many cases, those are sent from 'legitimate' senders and without hijacking open relays... so things like spf wouldn't help (even IF you could realistically speaking block 'non-verifiable' senders, which is way less than clear) but my permissions-list approach would block probably 80-90% or more of such malicious stuff, too. By blocking (by default) ALL attachments coming from people you don't normally expect to get attachments from, you're blocking malicious code, too. Sure, you'll open up the "attachments allowed" window for people you trust and authorize to send those, but that's going to typically be a small percentage of the people you'd normally maybe receive (ordinary) E-mails from. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 02:58:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19773 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K6wAJ22190 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:58:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TFqc-0005lp-3D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:58:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19738; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:58:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TFoH-0000Eu-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:55:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TFoG-0000Er-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:55:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TFqT-0005jr-H2; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TFpV-0005Zw-CX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:57:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19723 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TFnA-0000Em-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:54:36 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TFn9-0000Eg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:54:36 -0400 Received: (cpmta 14353 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2003 23:56:56 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2003 23:56:56 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 06:56:56 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:56:49 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:23:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Discouraging HTML-burdened E-mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:23:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> What I find bizzare is the persistent equating of turning off HTML by > default with banning HTML. > Fair enough. But even if all MUAs turned off HTML by default, spammers would continue to use HTML. In that case, it makes it an EVEN MORE reliable indicator of mail that most people probably don't want (especially unsolicited). :-) > Getting back to Gordon Peterson's proposal, he suggests a mechanism which would discourage the use of HTML and attachments, by forcing people to explicitly give others permission to send them those types of messages. Exactly. (IF they wanted to allow those senders to send them that type of stuff. which they might not). > This is meant to reduce the effectiveness of spam and address-harvesting techniques, and increase the effectiveness of content filters. At least it would mean that address harvesters would not get NEARLY so many E-mails through, as long as spammers continued to employ all their familiar HTML-based tricks, deceptions, and obscuring techniques. > Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of computer users have absolutely no idea what HTML is. All the more reason they shouldn't triple to quintuple the carrying cost of their E-mail due to using it inadvertently. > As a sysadmin, I've tried to explain it to people, and their eyes glaze over. They also have trouble grasping the notion of 'plain text', i.e. a format that doesn't support all the things they normally think of as being available in 'text' (which for them means what's available in Microsoft Word). Once they understand the severe limitations of this wonderful 'plain text' format which I'm encouraging them to use, the first thing they want to know is how to make sure that they never use it. They *like* the fact that when you reply to a message, Outlook puts the quoted text in a different colour; they feel that it makes messages easier to read. To them, right angle-brackets look like something out of the Stone Age. Again, if they WANT to enable HTML-burdened mail, for specified correspondents, they CAN. And easily, I'd hope. Frankly, I think that if people observed a DIRECT correlation between re-enabling HTML and a 10x increase in the amount of spam in their inboxes, I'd bet that most of them would figure out that it just wasn't worth it. > Imagine Sally User, who is a customer service representative, or a freelancer. Her ISP starts offering the proposed permissions service. She has no idea what HTML is, but she gathers that it's something about reducing spam, so she accepts the default permissions, which are quite restrictive. Suddenly people who write to Sally find that their messages bounce, with an automated reply saying: 'Please send me a plain-text message asking for permission to send me HTML email or attachments.' Actually, a better bounce message would say something like: "Your message is returned to you because you have either sent attachments or bulky and annoying HTML-burdened formatting. As a responsible way to help reduce the volume of spams, viruses, worms and trojans, I will gladly accept unsolicited E-mails if they are not in HTML-burdened format and if they don't contain unexpected attachments. If you NEED legitimately to send me HTML-burdened mail or attachments, you'll need to clear that with me in advance.... "Thank you for your understanding, and your help in us all working together in reducing the scourge of spam and viruses from the Internet. "[If you don't understand what HTML means in your E-mail or how to turn it off in your outgoing E-mail, contact your ISP for more information, or else see the web site at http://www.stopspam.org/noHTML.html ] " > These correspondents have no idea what this means (remember, they don't know what HTML is, either), The bounceback message could refer them to a Web site which would explain the problem, and explain how to turn off HTML formatting for the most popular E-mail clients. > and are put off by the fact that their email was rejected. I think you need to explain in the bounceback WHY it was rejected, and WHY the rejection is in ALL of our MUTUAL interest to do so. > ...So they simply take their business somewhere else, to another company or freelancer who doesn't reject their email. I'm sure that the spammers lurking here on this list are desperately hoping that everyone will cling tenaciously to the "need" to receive HTML-burdened E-mail and attachments from any-and-all, including untrusted/unknown, senders. The *great* majority of spam being sent out COUNTS on that! > ...When Sally finds out, she's horrified, and quickly sets her permissions to accept anything from anyone. IF she does that (and doing so ought to produce a CLEAR warning that it will hugely increase the amount of spam she receives) then AT LEAST the spam monkey is off the back of Sally's ISP, and she can't legitimately bitch about getting a lot of spam... since SHE made the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to defeat the anti-spam, anti-worm, anti-virus provisions offered. > I suspect that most people, if they understood that restrictive permissions would cause legitimate messages to bounce, would opt for giving full permissions to all senders. A *vanishingly* small percentage of "legitimate" messages from unknown/untrusted senders NEED to have HTML, attachments, or encoded text bodies. Again, you might have a point, IF the filter still let unchanged quantities of spam to arrive in Sally Stupid's inbox. But if she saw her spam decrease HUGELY when the ISP turned on the feature, and then saw it come back with full vengeance after she defeated the feature... I suspect that she'd pretty quickly learn to appreciate the value in it... and decide that it was worth her trouble to understand it. > As for making content filtering more effective, it would be easy for content filters to strip out all the HTML tags, comments, JavaScript, etc. from a message before filtering. Indeed, although some of what they WANT TO SEE is in the HTML and scripting... for example, a script that creates a "known spammer domain" URL dynamically. Another case are a large number of andomly generated, bogus HTML tags (and often in the middle of words!) which are only there to obscure content.... a near-certain indicator that the E-mail in question is spam, rather then legitimate. You don't really WANT to eliminate them, if they're there... you can learn a lot by taking a closer look at 'em. > No need to actually parse the HTML. (I'd be surprised if there weren't content filters that do this already.) Might be, but it's slower and longer (especially if you're going to try to emulate scripts etc to see what they 'might' produce... and that is a slippery slope indeed.) My present filter takes a pretty good look at the HTML, and strips most (but not all!) of it from the incoming messages. It generally strips the stuff that doesn't reveal much about the nature of the spam (or legitimacy) of the E-mail. > Finally, even if this proposal worked exactly as planned, why couldn't spammers do just fine with ASCII? They could, but: 1) it's harder to obscure the content 2) most URL tricks become unusuable 3) ActiveX and scripting become unusable 4) Obscured URLs become more obvious and suspicious when copied-and-pasted manually 5) font size, color, and related tricks become unusble 6) message-in-image-format becomes unusable 7) all Web bugs are suddenly unavailable 8) popups and the like are unavailable 9) they can't steal real-looking graphics from Ebay, PayPal, or other "legitimate" Web sites 10) people are more inclined to think twice before copying-and-pasting a URL compared to just clicking on it 11) clutter-obscuring the message with HTML comments, bogus nonsensical HTML tags, and the like become unusable > The Nigerian 419 spammers and their imitators have been using ASCII all along, and if they were a bit more clever about their wording, it would be quite difficult to filter. Indeed. But PRESENTLY a lot of the wording (if plain ASCII) is fairly easy to filter, and that would probably be even more true if spammers were practically speaking constrained to plain ASCII text. Spammers defeat that kind of thing by sending (for example) an E-mail which contains an Image tag to a block of text stored as a GIF or JPG file, which content scanners can't do much with. > Again, I think this is all really beside the point. We're here to come up with a mechanism to stop unsolicited bulk email. Gordon's proposal is concerned with some superficial properties that much spam currently has, I think that you're casually dismissing the fact that HTML and attachments are both KEY to a lot of the deceptions and misrepresentation that spammers (as well as virus authors) count upon. Even if we only still got the same number of spam messages as at present, but in practice took out the alternative HTML-burdened content, we'd already reduce overall spam volume (in terms of bytes) by probably 75-90%. *I* certainly think that would be worthwhile! > but doesn't deal with the core issues: 'unsolicited' and 'bulk'. I disagree. The permission list would allow for a fairly strict default behavior, which would block the majority of unsolicited spams. As for "bulk", I don't think that's automatically a behavior of spammers... indeed, more and more spam I've seen is individually created for each user (for example, having the recipient's name or e-mail address or at least their dowmin name somewhere in the spam). Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 03:14:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20156 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K7E6v26255 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:14:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TG61-0006pO-UU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:14:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20148; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TG3i-0000Je-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:11:42 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TG3i-0000Jb-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:11:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TG5w-0006m1-Vl; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TG4y-0006dt-Ic for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:13:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20074 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:12:58 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TG2f-0000Ib-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:10:37 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TG2e-0000IU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:10:36 -0400 Received: (cpmta 22617 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 00:12:58 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 00:12:58 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 07:12:58 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:12:38 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:39:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221022.00b6acf8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:39:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> WHOSE SUPPOSED RIGHTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT HERE, ANYHOW? > The users, as stated in the charter (emphasis added): > "The work of the ASRG will also include investigating techniques to >evaluate the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions. Usefulness is >described by the effectiveness, accuracy, and incentive structure of the >system. The cost of the system refers to the burden imposed on USERS and >operators of the communications system. " >>I think it makes sense to put priority rights to those who are paying the >>bills... and that's the recipients. They should have the power to turn >>off such >>bulky and unwanted crap, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they typically are >>trying to work around limited-size ISP-provided inboxes and to keep them from >>overflowing and bouncing the mail they DO want to receive. > Your underlying assumption is that spam will persist being HTML encoded. No. I think that INITIALLY, spam is going to stay HTML-burdened (and a result, nearly all of it would be trashed if sent to permission-list-protected recipients). After some time, spammers will realize that HTML-burdening their spam is the 'kiss of death' and they'll stop doing that. > I do not believe that it will take spammers too long to switch to plain ASCII. Agreed. And once they do that: 1) Their spam will be less effective; 2) their spam will be more easily dealt with by content filters; 3) their spam will be something like a QUARTER or less of the volume it is today, reducing both bandwidth and storage costs all along the delivery route. Sounds like a win-win deal to me. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 04:48:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21956 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K8m9B12933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:48:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19THZ2-0003MW-WC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:48:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21944; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THWj-0000lo-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:45:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THWi-0000ll-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:45:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19THYv-0003Kc-Dm; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19THYu-0003KR-OG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:48:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21941 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THWa-0000li-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:45:36 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THWZ-0000lN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:45:36 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 43F3D232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:27 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030620084727.GA2583@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <20030619215518.GB1093@socialtools.net> <200306200120.h5K1Kncd012783@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306200120.h5K1Kncd012783@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:27 +0100 On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 07:20:49PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of computer users have absolutely > > no idea what HTML is. As a sysadmin, I've tried to explain it to people, > > and their eyes glaze over. .... > > Yes, but that cuts both ways. I bet most users have no clue > how to tell IE or Netscape how to make a word bold or red. > As I test, I just now tried to get Netscape 7.02 on XP to make a word > bold in a mail message. I cannot find any sign of any way to do such > a thing. Netscape 7 was written by people like us, who dislike HTML email, so they've made it non-obvious. But in the business world, nobody uses Netscape for their email. They use Outlook, which gives you a little toolbar that looks exactly like your Microsoft Word formatting toolbar, with font size, bold/italic/underline, colour, etc. > > I suspect that most people, if they understood that restrictive permissions > > would cause legitimate messages to bounce, would opt for giving full > > permissions to all senders. > > That is contradicts experience reported by people running retail ISPs. > Many ISPs report almost all of their customers are happy with single > digit false positive rates for 80% reductions in spam loads. If 70% of people currently use HTML, as Kee Hinckley's numbers suggest, then the false positive rate will be 70% under the proposed scheme. Think of what would happen in those 70% of cases. Instead of one message, there would be at least three (the original HTML mail, the bounce message, and the plain-text version), and at most five (the original HTML mail, the bounce message, the request for permission, the acknowledgement of permission, and then the original HTML mail again). For a proposal that's meant to decrease the volume of mail and avoid creating disruption, that's not very satisfactory. > As I keep saying there are those of us whose livelihoods involve > email and who won't tolerate 0.2% false positives and there are > the 100,000,000's of the rest of the Internet for whom not receiving > spam is more important than not hearing from a long lost friend. Mail from strangers isn't just from long-lost friends. It's ubiquitous in the corporate world. The employees of a typical company communicate with employees of many other companies: clients, suppliers, etc. Employees come and go, and different projects involve different combinations of companies and different people, so the set of people that a given individual may receive legitimate mail from is constantly changing. Consider a sales representative, who may be contacted by a constantly-changing set of hundreds of people who work at companies that she is negotiating sales with, or that may be interested in her company's products. As a sale progresses, more companies (accountants, lawyers, etc.) are brought in. Similarly for mergers and acquisitions. That's a lot of people who would be annoyed by bounces. > As for bulk [...] the Distributed Checksum Clearinghouses or the DCC. Yes, I know, and to me, DCC seems much more pertinent to the task of this group. > Again, I realize that the DCC is far from perfect. That is one rason > why I've talked about it far less than other things here, and less > than other people have talked about their favorite mechanisms. So let's talk about it. Could you summarize the problems of DCC (I know one or two have been mentioned here already)? Perhaps this group could give some thought to whether those problems could have technical solutions. Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 05:10:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22472 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5K9A5617591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:10:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19THuH-0004Ze-7V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:10:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22465; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THrv-0000tc-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:07:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THru-0000tZ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:07:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19THuD-0004Xf-Ns; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19THtU-0004X3-De for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:09:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22455 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THr8-0000tM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:06:50 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19THr7-0000tI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:06:49 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 76CC0232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:43 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Discouraging HTML-burdened E-mail Message-ID: <20030620090843.GB2583@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:43 +0100 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:23:54AM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of computer users have absolutely > no idea what HTML is. > > All the more reason they shouldn't triple to quintuple the carrying cost of > their E-mail due to using it inadvertently. That's a techie's point of view. It's like saying, 'people shouldn't inadvertently use incorrect device drivers', or 'people shouldn't inadvertently use systems that send passwords in cleartext'. Those are issues that the vast majority of people can't be expected to understand or sort out for themselves. They rightly expect vendors to take care of all such matters for them. > The bounceback message could refer them to a Web site which would explain the > problem, and explain how to turn off HTML formatting for the most popular E-mail > clients. In corporate environments, there are a lot of busy managers who expect everything to 'just work' -- immediately. On receiving your proposed bounce message, the irate recipient gets on the phone to his IT department, and demands to know why he has to go off and read some technical web site just to send an email. This is a recipe for chaos. And in case you're thinking of suggesting that the IT department configure everyone's MUA to send plain text by default, keep in mind that this would place a huge burden on IT departments, which are already straining to keep everyone's virus checkers up to date. Moreover, it wouldn't help in the case where the irate manager is trying to send a PowerPoint document. An anti-spam system should be as non-intrusive as possible; I think we can do better than this. > IF she does that (and doing so ought to produce a CLEAR warning that it will > hugely increase the amount of spam she receives) then AT LEAST the spam monkey > is off the back of Sally's ISP, and she can't legitimately bitch about getting a > lot of spam... since SHE made the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to defeat the anti-spam, > anti-worm, anti-virus provisions offered. It means that the alternative on offer gave her no satisfactory option. Again, our task here is to do better than that. > A *vanishingly* small percentage of "legitimate" messages from unknown/untrusted > senders NEED to have HTML, attachments, or encoded text bodies. The concept of need isn't relevant here. People use email because they want to, not just because they need to. The infrastructure exists because they're willing to pay for it, not because they need it. We are here to come up with proposals that users will accept, not to impose our own tastes on users. > As for "bulk", I don't think that's automatically a behavior of spammers... The word 'bulk' appears in most definitions of spam I've seen. > indeed, more and more spam I've seen is individually created for each user (for > example, having the recipient's name or e-mail address or at least their dowmin > name somewhere in the spam). It's still bulk mail, it's just 'personalized'. I understand that there are ways of coping with this when counting mail to see whether it's 'bulk'; would someone more familiar with those techniques care to comment? Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 06:38:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24242 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KAc6507271 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:38:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TJHS-0001tB-RY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:38:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24228; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJF5-0001LA-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:35:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJF5-0001L7-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:35:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TJHN-0001rI-Fj; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TJHE-0001qw-60 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:37:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24225 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJEr-0001L4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:35:25 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJEq-0001Kt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:35:24 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4C2FD232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:37:18 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] base64 encoded mail Message-ID: <20030620103718.GC2696@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <3EF270D0.9020001@att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EF270D0.9020001@att.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:37:18 +0100 On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:26:24PM -0400, Tony Hansen wrote: > IMHO, blocking an email message because it's base64 encoded is > misguided. In fact, there are mail systems that send *all* text in base64 encoding (libero.it, a popular Hotmail-like system in Italy, did this the last time I checked). Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 06:43:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24407 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KAh3x08788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:43:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TJME-0002Hf-T0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:43:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24397; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJJr-0001Mu-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:40:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJJr-0001Mr-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:40:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TJMC-0002BU-U4; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TJLj-0002B9-AB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:42:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA24389 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJJM-0001Mo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:40:04 -0400 Received: from mail2.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.230] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TJJL-0001MM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:40:03 -0400 Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 17:41:50 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.144.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.144]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 17:41:50 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Discouraging HTML-burdened E-mail Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:44 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:43 +0100, Benjamin Geer wrote: >demands to know why he has to go off and read some technical web site just >to send an email. This is a recipe for chaos. No, the present situation is chaos. The proposal advocates replacing chaos by rule-based order Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 07:51:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28241 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KBoZn26118 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:50:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TKPb-0006nB-78 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:50:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28156; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TKNF-00027q-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:48:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TKNF-00027n-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:48:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TKN7-0006fY-3Y; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TKMe-0006bp-Jz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:47:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27671 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TKKF-0001xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:45:03 -0400 Received: from mail15.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.215] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TKKC-0001wy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:45:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 2816 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 11:47:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.254.124) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 11:47:15 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] base64 encoded mail User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <3EF270D0.9020001@att.com> In-Reply-To: <3EF270D0.9020001@att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306200750.06925.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:50:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony Hansen wrote: > IMHO, blocking an email message because it's base64 encoded is > misguided. Here's a case in point: There are gateways out there that > will switch encodings on messages. If a message is sent through a > gateway that understands 8-bit messaging, and it is then passed > through to another system which only allows 7-bit, it's got to be > downgraded. Downgrading to base64 is perfectly reasonable for such a > gateway. There are also various standards for sending assorted types of data between systems, by email, that dictate that the pieces should be base64-encoded. Most notably I recall doing that with IVM. (Haven't kept up with that since then, tho, so I dunno if they've come up with something else, or what....) -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer in the Washington DC area See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume and other information. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 09:03:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04965 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KD3Gh12722 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:03:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TLXw-0003J7-Bc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:03:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04897; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:03:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLVa-0003pD-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:00:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLVa-0003pA-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:00:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TLXh-0003H9-ER; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TLX5-0003Gn-ND for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:02:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04877 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLUk-0003or-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:59:58 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLUj-0003oo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:59:57 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KD2CB9004994 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:02:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201302.h5KD2CB9004994@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Cutting down spam load References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:02:12 -0600 (MDT) > From: gep2@terabites.com > ... > [each] usually 3-5x (or MORE, oftentimes) bigger than spam which isn't. So > you'd block (in this case) 73% of the spam MESSAGES but probably 90% or more of > spam BYTES by this *simple*, easily implemented strategy. That's true but not impressive, because the total number of bytes involved in all email is trivial per user. Typical web pages are 10 times larger than typical email, including spam. Typical users receive only about 10 mail messages/day (judging from DCC numbers at a bunch of ISPs). I think typical users look at more than 10 web pages/day.. Of course, if you have 35,000,000 users or even just 10,000, you have reason to care about the bytes spent used for their mailboxes. However, until you arrange to compress their mailboxes, you don't really care. > If you have good enough log statistics, check to see what percentage of spam > BYTES would actually be blocked by taking out messages containing text/html > message type indications in entity headers. It would also be interesting to see > how many spams (and percentages of overall spam BYTES) contain attachments > (message text as JPG/GIF images, or (not used so often recently) .DOC files or > whatever. My approach would end up truncating the great majority of those, too. Plenty of spam is tiny and on average it's small. If you are spammer, you can generally send twice as many 2.5 KByte messages/day than 5 KByte messages. That pressure might be why base64 encoding has decreased radically in my traps in the last few months. Base64 costs the spammer a 33% increase (4 encoded bytes for every 3 plaintext) without offering any defense against non-trivial filters. That pressure might also explain why the noise had become rare by a week or two ago. (My guess for the resurgance in the last week or 10 days is that a spamware vendor has a new set of suckers who don't understand this.) >AND, don't forget, another big benefit is blocking NOT ONLY JUST spam, but also >viruses/worms/trojans. In many cases, those are sent from 'legitimate' senders >and without hijacking open relays... That's a red herring, because many outfits already filter attachments for worms. More important, the problem for your idea is not selling it here but in Redmond. Until Microsoft stops encoding mail in HTML by default, perhaps by only turning on HTML when the user does some formating, ISPs cannot filter HTML by default. I really wish they could and would, but I'm not quite crazy enough to confuse my wishes with reality. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 09:13:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05303 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KDD3E15433 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TLhP-00040q-F5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05286; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLhN-0003uk-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLhN-0003uh-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TLhM-0003xn-Sl; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TLgb-0003xI-Nn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:12:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05271 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLga-0003uZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:12:12 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TLgZ-0003uW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:12:11 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2467403; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:12:11 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306200120.h5K1Kncd012783@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030619215518.GB1093@socialtools.net> <200306200120.h5K1Kncd012783@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:10:54 -0400 At 7:20 PM -0600 6/19/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >Why don't you test that impression? This is a question that can be >measure, and I think makes sense. How much of that mail involves real >formatting? If you choose 50 messsages at random, how many use HTML >and of those, how many use any real text formating? (e.g. intentional >use of or as opposed to noise added by MUAs to all HTML >messages they create) That turns out to be extremely difficult to detect. In particular forwarded messages use lots of HTML formatting. That and lots of other things, like links, image tags, font changes are *not* gratuitous formatting. They make it easier for a user to pick out which parts of the message come from where. Yes, we know there are other ways (Eudora creates vertical bars for quoted text without using HTML, and links show up as links, and attached images show up inline anyway). But the fact of the matter is that HTML email is not just fluff--it's a component of the UI that makes it easier for many people to use email. Whether they deliberately make a piece of text bold is not a determiner of whether they want their email formatted. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 09:47:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06103 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KDl8C23066 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMEN-0005zx-V3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06073; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMEM-00043z-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMEL-00043w-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMEH-0005wN-Eo; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMDg-0005pi-FC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:46:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06035 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMDe-000438-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:46:22 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMDd-000434-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:46:21 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KDkJPa016283 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:46:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201346.h5KDkJPa016283@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <20030620084727.GA2583@socialtools.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:46:19 -0600 (MDT) > From: Benjamin Geer > ... > > Again, I realize that the DCC is far from perfect. That is one rason > > why I've talked about it far less than other things here, and less > > than other people have talked about their favorite mechanisms. > > So let's talk about it. Could you summarize the problems of DCC (I know one > or two have been mentioned here already)? Perhaps this group could give > some thought to whether those problems could have technical solutions. The main problem with the DCC and similar filters is obvious and has been mentioned here. It is fundamentally unfixable, and so I'd rather not talk about it in public. Tactics like the DCC should be assumed to be effective only against "mainsleaze" or spam from the Fortune 50,000. The current flood of drugs, loansharking, and other frauds will eventually be controlled by legislation that makes it a serious crime to not pay the "universal mail access infrastructure free" of $0.001 to $0.10 per target. Corporate spammers like Topica, DoubleClick, Microsoft, and Dell will be happy to pay and reluctant to appear to be old style evil spammers by being creative in their filter avoidance. This list has not heard from the industry leaders in spam defenses including Brightmail and Postini. Even SpamAssassin and the so called Bayesian filtering people hasn't had much to say. I think most if not all of them are (or were?) represented here. Consider why they've had little or nothing to say. Their filters are all at least somewhat effective, but could doubtless be improved. I've noticed distinct, albeit superficial changes in spam in my traps after remarks made here, so talking about limitations in existing filters could be costly. Committees are rarely effective in attacking straight technical issues even when the participants understand the technical issues. Some ASRG contributors don't (or didn't) know the difference between an SMTP error status and a DSN. Many contributors with better technical understanding seem to be limited in the spam they see to a few dozen/day. Thus, talk here about existing filters risks a high cost for the fliters but small likelihood of benefit. This group should concentrate on its charter, including defining the problem, defining what unsolicited mail has implicit concent, and writing BCPs about filters (e.g. filtering "SHOULD" be done during the SMTP transaction and their SMTP messages "SHOULD" include clues to help with false positives). A BCP that says that MUAs "SHOULD NOT" generate HTML by default or at least unless the sending user selects some formating is another good thing that a group like this could produce, but evidently won't. ("SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT" in the special sense of an RFC.) Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 10:09:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07338 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KE9BZ29823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMZj-0007kw-El for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07284; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMZh-0004DR-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMZg-0004DO-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMZZ-0007j4-Oe; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMZV-0007it-0K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07256 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMZS-0004DF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:54 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMZS-0004DC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:08:54 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19TMZ7-0001HN-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:08:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200306201346.h5KDkJPa016283@calcite.rhyolite.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: "Vernon Schryver" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:08:33 +0100 >writing BCPs about filters (e.g. filtering "SHOULD" be done during >the SMTP transaction and their SMTP messages "SHOULD" include clues >to help with false positives). > Yep, I'm still on with the filtering at SMTP thang. I've been on holiday (vacation) and my wife wouldn't me do any work. I hope to have a somewhat expanded version (formatted nicely) for y'all next week. If anyone missed it - the old version is here: http://www.merseymail.com/asrg/Filter-SMTP-0-1.txt >A BCP that says that MUAs "SHOULD NOT" generate HTML by default or at >least unless the sending user selects some formating is another good >thing that a group like this could produce, but evidently won't. > Well, if *someone* wrote one they could bring it to the group :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 10:18:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08132 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KEI4I32036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMiK-0008Kd-Ov for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08121; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMiI-0004GX-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMiI-0004GS-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMiH-0008HN-Mm; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TMhf-0008Gu-Ps for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08110 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMhd-0004GE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:21 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TMhc-0004GB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:20 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KEHHRM024109 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:17:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201417.h5KEHHRM024109@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:17:17 -0600 (MDT) > From: Kee Hinckley > >Why don't you test that impression? This is a question that can be > >measure, and I think makes sense. How much of that mail involves real > >formatting? If you choose 50 messsages at random, how many use HTML > >and of those, how many use any real text formating? (e.g. intentional > >use of or as opposed to noise added by MUAs to all HTML > >messages they create) > > That turns out to be extremely difficult to detect. In particular > forwarded messages use lots of HTML formatting. That and lots of > other things, like links, image tags, font changes are *not* > gratuitous formatting. They make it easier for a user to pick out > which parts of the message come from where. Yes, we know there are > other ways (Eudora creates vertical bars for quoted text without > using HTML, and links show up as links, and attached images show up > inline anyway). I disagree with all of that. I carefully did not say anything about writing code to look at 100,000 messages but suggested manually examining a modest sample of messages. For each of the issues you raise: - you can almost always see which formating is due to quoting some other message. That formatting is gratuitous and should not be counted, because the receiving MUA can do it without HTML. - links should not be counted because MUAs automatically detect them in plaintext and make them "active" - image tags should be counted because the user presumably wanted the picutre - font changes that are not gratuitious should of course be counted - if you find HTML formating that you can't decide whether it's what the user asked for, then asssume it is not graguitious. I predict that you'll find that other than quoting other messages and silly noise added by rote to all of their output by lame MUAs, you'll find essentially no uses of HTML formatting. I claim that users almost never ask for bold, some other font, or include (as opposed to MIME attach) images. > But the fact of the matter is that HTML email is not > just fluff--it's a component of the UI that makes it easier for many > people to use email. Whether they deliberately make a piece of text > bold is not a determiner of whether they want their email formatted. That religious statement isn't a good counter to my claim. It also confuses MUA presentation with sender formatting. An MUA does *NOT* need HTML from the sender to render quoted text in a different font, color, or whatever. My claim is that the vast majority of HTML mail has no formating that the sender cares about. If your position is ground in reality as well as enthusiasm, it will be trivial to disprove my claim. I don't have access to a stream of general (non-spam) user mail, or I'd take a sample and make the count myself. The mail I can count (e.g. to various mailing lists) implies that HTML formatting is even less valued than I claim. If HTML formating is so valuable, valued and nearly universal used, why haven't we seen much of it in this mailing list? Why wasn't that text you quoted of mine in green italics or something? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 10:42:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08825 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KEg6o05603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TN5a-0001SI-4Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08814; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN5X-0004Q3-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN5X-0004Q0-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TN5U-0001QQ-Qz; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TN5J-0001Q4-7u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:41:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08804 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:41:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN5G-0004Pl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:41:46 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN5G-0004Ph-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:41:46 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1DB87232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:41:15 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030620144115.GA3295@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <200306201417.h5KEHHRM024109@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306201417.h5KEHHRM024109@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:41:15 +0100 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 08:17:17AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > If HTML formating is so valuable, valued and nearly universal used, > why haven't we seen much of it in this mailing list? Because in technical circles (and some academic ones), HTML email is prohibited by cultural tradition -- the same tradition that says quoting in replies should be done in the style I'm using here. Elsewhere, another culture reigns, in which HTML is the norm, and quoting is done by inserting the new text above the quoted (and usually indented) message (which is not trimmed, so that the entire thread is sent with each reply). Efforts to impose cultural change are notoriously fraught. Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 10:43:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08882 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KEh2E06117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:43:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TN6U-0001aa-09 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:43:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08853; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN6R-0004QQ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN6Q-0004QN-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TN6S-0001XZ-CB; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TN65-0001XD-51 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08830 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN62-0004QH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:34 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TN62-0004QE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:34 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2467671 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:34 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306201417.h5KEHHRM024109@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200306201417.h5KEHHRM024109@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:42:28 -0400 Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea
At 8:17 AM -0600 6/20/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
   - image tags should be counted because the user presumably wanted
        the picutre

Well, then as a start we can probably consider the 34% of the email which was multipart/mixed as user-requested.

But actually, even that isn't a good test.  IncrediMail includes an ad logo with every message.  But then, from what I can tell--most of their users signed up specifically because they *did* want formatting.  You can have mood email, images based on the date, background email wallpaper and lots of other fun stuff.

That religious statement isn't a good counter to my claim.  It also
confuses MUA presentation with sender formatting.  An MUA does *NOT*
need HTML from the sender to render quoted text in a different font,
color, or whatever.

Which is in fact, exactly what I said when I talked about Eudora.

If HTML formating is so valuable, valued and nearly universal used,
why haven't we seen much of it in this mailing list?  Why wasn't
that text you quoted of mine in green italics or something?

Because technical mailing lists are run by techies, and we have actively (even on this list, if I recall correctly) berated people who used excessive formatting.  The non-technical lists I'm on getting formatted email all the time--even when the list software filters it out.  I'd estimate that about 50% of the messages I get on one non-technical email list have a message from Yahoo about attachments having been filtered out.  People set background wallpaper for their email!  Customizing fonts and colors is something end-users do every day in their word processor.  They have no idea why they shouldn't do it in their email.  Do they *need* to?  No, of course not.  Do they want to?  Obviously.

And does a non-techie know why I just put "*"'s around the "need" in the previous paragraph?  Maybe.  Would they do it?  No, of course not, they'd just hit the bold button.

I will make another attempt to determine how much of that email has user-specified formatting.  But it's very hard to quantify.  If they cut and paste a message (e.g. not forwarded) and it ends up with the mail headers bolded--was that a user-decision (after all, the system is only making sure the email looks just the same as it does in the UI, and the receiving MUA won't do it) or gratuitous formatting?  Judging intention from formatting is not trivial.

And of course, it's not clear it matters here.  HTML-blocking will not work.  Microsoft isn't going  get rid of WYSIWYG in their email programs, and commercial mailers aren't going to drop HTML as a format for their mailings.  The whole thing would just turn into another massive whitelisting problem.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 10:56:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10374 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KEu6f11344 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNJ8-0002wt-CX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10269; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNJ5-0004ub-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNJ5-0004uY-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNJ3-0002uz-Tz; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNIU-0002rh-RR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:55:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10191 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNIS-0004si-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:55:24 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNIQ-0004sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:55:22 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KEtL48025301 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:55:21 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201455.h5KEtL48025301@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <20030620144115.GA3295@socialtools.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:55:21 -0600 (MDT) > From: Benjamin Geer > > If HTML formating is so valuable, valued and nearly universal used, > > why haven't we seen much of it in this mailing list? > > Because in technical circles (and some academic ones), HTML email is > prohibited by cultural tradition -- the same tradition that says quoting in > replies should be done in the style I'm using here. That implies that HTML should be less common here, but not as absent as it has been. We've had contributions from people who don't seem well versed on such conventions, including top-posting and full-quoting. > Elsewhere, another > culture reigns, in which HTML is the norm, and quoting is done by inserting > the new text above the quoted (and usually indented) message (which is not > trimmed, so that the entire thread is sent with each reply). Efforts to > impose cultural change are notoriously fraught. Yes, but we've seen top-posting and full-quoting in this list, but practically no HTML. It's possible that those running Mailman for this list have set filters against HTML, but I doubt it. Again, I'm not saying that HTML mail is other than useful and valuable or that the Internet doesn't carry 10,000,000's of real, intentionally formatted HTML mail every day. I am saying that the claims that users care about HTML in more than a few percent of their messages are false. You've said you have access to lots of mailing lists where HTML mail is the norm. Would it be too hard to look at the next 50 representative messages? (e.g. not a mailing list devoted to tech. writers discussing how to do 2-column facing pages with odd/even headers and footers, auto-numbered footnotes, and flowed text around figures). Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:01:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10966 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KF13b14500 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNNv-0003ln-Qy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10934; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNNt-0005AF-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNNs-0005AC-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNNt-0003jv-73; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNNN-0003ih-Tg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:00:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10912 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:00:26 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNNL-00059a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:00:27 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNNK-00059X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:00:27 -0400 Received: (cpmta 1347 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 08:00:19 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 08:00:19 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 15:00:19 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:58:36 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2258@mou1wnexm02.verisign.co m> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:25:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >The users want html formatted mail. Most of them have no idea what that means. The main reason so many users end up sending HTML-burdened E-mail is because they don't know any better, and because it is the default. Most HTML-burdened E-mail generated by the VAST majority of users never use any of the formatting (or other such) features at all. For all of those messages, the HTML-burdening only just makes the messages bigger without conveoying ANY more information. >They do not want rfc plaintext. The GREAT majority of them (probably 95%) couldn't care less. For the rest, if their recipient agrees to accept the bulkier HTML-burdened stuff, they can continue to use it without the slightest difficulty. I believe that, given the choice, the overwhelming annoyance of spam, viruses, and worms is a FAR greater issue to virtually all legitimate users than HTML 'benefits' are. If more users realized how crucial HTML-burdened messages are to spammers, the users would gladly give up HTML. >This problem cannot be solved by solutions that only work for geeks. Sorry, but to suggest that plain ASCII text E-mail "doesn't work" for other than geeks is one of the more ludicrous arguments I've see in this thread so far... :-) Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:06:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11348 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KF6BU15496 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNSs-00041r-V6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11262; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNSq-0005FR-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNSp-0005FO-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNSi-0003yq-JV; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:06:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNSR-0003yZ-Dh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:05:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11171 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNSN-0005DI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:05:39 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNSM-0005Ca-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:05:39 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:05:09 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030620150509.GA29290@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <20030619215518.GB1093@socialtools.net> <200306200120.h5K1Kncd012783@calcite.rhyolite.com> <20030620084727.GA2583@socialtools.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030620084727.GA2583@socialtools.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:05:09 -0500 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:47:27AM +0100, Benjamin Geer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 07:20:49PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of computer users have absolutely > > > no idea what HTML is. As a sysadmin, I've tried to explain it to people, > > > and their eyes glaze over. .... > > > > Yes, but that cuts both ways. I bet most users have no clue > > how to tell IE or Netscape how to make a word bold or red. > > As I test, I just now tried to get Netscape 7.02 on XP to make a word > > bold in a mail message. I cannot find any sign of any way to do such > > a thing. > > Netscape 7 was written by people like us, who dislike HTML email, so they've I can tell! Links in email header lines which used to be clickable in Netscape 4 no longer are in Netscape 7! To visit such a URL (for example, to unsubscribe from a list) one has to view the raw message and cut-and-paste! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:10:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11613 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFAAQ16921 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNWk-0004Oq-5X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11599; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNWh-0005La-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNWh-0005LX-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNWb-0004My-Rn; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNWV-0004MS-Ak for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:09:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11593 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNWS-0005LI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:09:52 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNWM-0005L4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:09:50 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KF9gWs008996 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:09:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201509.h5KF9gWs008996@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:09:42 -0600 (MDT) > From: Kee Hinckley > > image tags should be > counted because the user presumably wanted > Well, then as a start we can probably consider the 34% of the > email which was multipart/mixed as user-requested. That would be wrong, because we're talking about HTML formating. >
But actually, even that isn't a good test.  IncrediMail > includes an ad logo with every message.  But then, from what I > can tell--most of their users signed up specifically because they > *did* want formatting.  You can have mood email, images based on > the date, background email wallpaper and lots of other fun > stuff.
The formating they ask for should be counted, but not the logo. > ... >
If HTML formating is so valuable, valued > and nearly universal used,
> why haven't we seen much of it in this mailing list?  Why > wasn't
>
that text you quoted of mine in green > italics or something?
>
Because technical mailing lists are run by techies, and we have > actively (even on this list, if I recall correctly) berated people who > used excessive formatting.  The non-technical lists I'm on > getting formatted email all the time--even when the list software > filters it out.  I'd estimate that about 50% of the messages I > get on one non-technical email list have a message from Yahoo about > attachments having been filtered out. We are talking about HTML formating instead of attachments, or at least I am. Besides your point about attachments already being filtered cuts against your position. > People set background > wallpaper for their email!  Customizing fonts and colors is > something end-users do every day in their word processor.  They > have no idea why they shouldn't do it in their email.  Do they > *need* to?  No, of course not.  Do they want to?  > Obviously. Of course some people do. My claim is that they are rare. Your claim seems to be that most or at large minority do that sort of stuff. > ... > And does a non-techie know why I just put "*"'s around > the "need" in the previous paragraph?  Maybe.  > Would they do it?  No, of course not, they'd just hit the > bold button.
Your claim is that they do it. Mine is that they don't. Instead of arguing about it, how about some numbers? >
I will make another attempt to determine how much of that email > has user-specified formatting.  But it's very hard to quantify.  > If they cut and paste a message (e.g. not forwarded) and it ends up > with the mail headers bolded--was that a user-decision (after all, the > system is only making sure the email looks just the same as it does in > the UI, and the receiving MUA won't do it) or gratuitous formatting?  > Judging intention from formatting is not trivial.
Your efforts will be appreciated. >
And of course, it's not clear it matters here.  > HTML-blocking will not work.  Microsoft isn't going  get rid > of WYSIWYG in their email programs, and commercial mailers aren't > going to drop HTML as a format for their mailings.  The whole > thing would just turn into another massive whitelisting problem.
That's a red herring. No one has said that Microsoft should "get rid of" their almost WYSIWYG stuff (I've worked in that area and have opinions). I've proposed only turning off HTML by default or not sending HTML unless the user explicitly asks for some formatting. > http://www.messagefire.com/        >   Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
> http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology > and Society
>
> I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to > accept
> responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to > regulate
> everyone else's.
As far as I can tell, all of the HTML formatting in your message was gratuitious and not manually selected. Note that a lot of it was incredibly bad but typical machine-generated HTML. For example many of the non-breaking spaces are obnoxious (but hidden) noise HTML. Or notice that pair above. But as far as I can tell, the fact that MUAs generate incredibly bad HTML is irrelevant. vjs _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:13:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11737 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFD2j17521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:13:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNZW-0004YW-7c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11702; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNZV-0005Mv-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:13:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNZU-0005Ms-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:13:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNZT-0004VW-Ft; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:12:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNZH-0004VK-1T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:12:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11694 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNZG-0005Mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:12:46 -0400 Received: from mail2.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.230] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNZF-0005MV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:12:45 -0400 Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 22:12:12 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.144.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.144]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 22:12:01 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:12:10 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:25:42 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: Truth is stranger than fiction dept: One correspondent recently sent me an html message, consisting of 993 kb of htmltrash and 570 bytes of text payload. I told her never to do it again and she stopped using the html formatting and accompanying trash. She knew no better until someone knowledgeable told her. >>This problem cannot be solved by solutions that only work for geeks. > >Sorry, but to suggest that plain ASCII text E-mail "doesn't work" for other than >geeks is one of the more ludicrous arguments I've see in this thread so far... >:-) Anyone who can't figure out how to click Edit/Preferences is too stupid to use a computer, probably too stupid to live. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:24:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12118 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFO5U18913 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNkD-0004uy-BE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12091; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNkC-0005S7-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNkB-0005S4-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNk9-0004t3-MV; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TM8k-0005mG-5c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:41:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05941 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TM8i-00041R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:41:16 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TM8h-00041O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:41:15 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5KDfE2Q000470; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:41:14 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2258@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'gep2@terabites.com'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:41:13 -0700 The users want html formatted mail. They do not want rfc plaintext. This problem cannot be solved by solutions that only work for geeks. -----Original Message----- From: gep2@terabites.com Sent: Thu Jun 19 16:15:23 2003 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail > Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML messages in order to kill spam. We don't sacrifice those AT ALL... ONLY the ability to send such [supposedly] "legit" HTML-burdened messages UNSOLICITED, to those who have specifically set their E-mail accounts to NOT receive such mail from unsolicited/unknown/untrusted senders. WHOSE SUPPOSED RIGHTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT HERE, ANYHOW? I think it makes sense to put priority rights to those who are paying the bills... and that's the recipients. They should have the power to turn off such bulky and unwanted crap, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they typically are trying to work around limited-size ISP-provided inboxes and to keep them from overflowing and bouncing the mail they DO want to receive. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:30:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12555 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFU4c20289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNq0-0005HA-S0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12525; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpz-0005ZZ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpy-0005ZV-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNpx-0005Aa-3E; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNpH-00057w-Ct for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12452 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpG-0005YS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:18 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpF-0005YJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KFTFOQ029849 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:29:15 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Subject: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:29:15 -0500 (CDT) Over the past few months, I've been working on a new method of blocking spam that I've termed "Greylisting". From my testing it appears to be over 97% effective. It requires no changes to the infrastructure, is resistant to spammer adaptation, and is very effective, yet very lightweight. The paper outlining the method is at http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/ and I have also posted an example implementation for a Sendmail Milter written in perl. Please look it over and try to poke holes in it, but I've worked pretty hard to make it as bulletproof as possible. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:30:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12557 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFU5W20307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNq1-0005HR-45 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12527; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpz-0005Zc-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpz-0005ZW-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNpx-0005BA-NZ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNpr-0005A7-Aw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12508 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpq-0005Z4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:54 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpn-0005Ym-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:52 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] "Useful features" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:23:09 -0400 At 12:44 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > We should not sacrifice any email types or formats to kill spam. > >We don't have to do that. I propose merely that we encourage the blocking of >"spam-friendly" features by default in E-mail coming from senders that >haven't >previously arranged to send a given recipient e-mail of that type. > >Once they're known to the recipient, and the recipient agrees to accept >bulkier >and more "fully-featured" e-mail from that sender, no problem. > >But one should NEVER send such stuff unannounced to recipients, since those >recipients may not wish it, or may not be prepared to receive it. > > > Rather than limit the types of email that we receive, > >We're only proposing limiting what can be sent from UNTRUSTED SENDERS that we >HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED. From the charter: "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires. " We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. First lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what goes into it. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:31:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12714 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFV2A21437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNqw-0005Zd-Ph for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12619; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNqv-0005ai-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNqv-0005af-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNqv-0005Q9-8s; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNpy-0005Ba-1a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12513 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpw-0005ZB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:00 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpu-0005Z1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:59 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112525.00bbc198@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221022.00b6acf8@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:18 -0400 At 02:39 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> WHOSE SUPPOSED RIGHTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT HERE, ANYHOW? > > > The users, as stated in the charter (emphasis added): > > > "The work of the ASRG will also include investigating techniques to > >evaluate the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions. Usefulness is > >described by the effectiveness, accuracy, and incentive structure of the > >system. The cost of the system refers to the burden imposed on USERS and > >operators of the communications system. " > > >>I think it makes sense to put priority rights to those who are paying the > >>bills... and that's the recipients. They should have the power to turn > >>off such > >>bulky and unwanted crap, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they typically are > >>trying to work around limited-size ISP-provided inboxes and to keep > them from > >>overflowing and bouncing the mail they DO want to receive. > > > Your underlying assumption is that spam will persist being HTML encoded. > >No. I think that INITIALLY, spam is going to stay HTML-burdened (and a >result, >nearly all of it would be trashed if sent to permission-list-protected >recipients). After some time, spammers will realize that HTML-burdening >their >spam is the 'kiss of death' and they'll stop doing that. > > > I do not believe that it will take spammers too long to switch to plain > ASCII. > >Agreed. And once they do that: I believe someone on the list has stated that spammers are monitoring the working group and in the last 60 days there have been significant changes in spam based on our discussions here. When I mean that they will switch to plain ASCII, I was not talking about on the order of years, rather DAYS or WEEKS. By the time you can implement base64 blocking, spammers will already be using plain ASCII. All you will do is irritate lots of users. > 1) Their spam will be less effective; How? > 2) their spam will be more easily dealt with by content filters; How? Spammers send HTML encoded mail on the assumption that the MUAs are able to parse it. What is easier to do: make content filters be able to parse everything MUAs can, or block HTML encoded mail over the Internet completely. I believe the first one is easier since there are few companies that make filters many of which already able to parse and process base64, HTML, etc. > 3) their spam will be something like a QUARTER or less of the volume > it is >today, reducing both bandwidth and storage costs all along the delivery route. Agreed somewhat. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:31:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12732 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFV4W21693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNqy-0005dg-CF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12637; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNqx-0005at-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNqw-0005ao-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNqv-0005UQ-W5; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNpy-0005Bp-Ve for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12521 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpy-0005ZO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:02 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNpt-0005Z3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:59 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112322.00b9fac8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Cutting down spam load In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:24:01 -0400 At 01:03 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >[..] > >AND, don't forget, another big benefit is blocking NOT ONLY JUST spam, but >also >viruses/worms/trojans. In many cases, those are sent from 'legitimate' >senders >and without hijacking open relays... so things like spf wouldn't help >(even IF >you could realistically speaking block 'non-verifiable' senders, which is way >less than clear) but my permissions-list approach would block probably >80-90% or >more of such malicious stuff, too. By blocking (by default) ALL attachments >coming from people you don't normally expect to get attachments from, you're >blocking malicious code, too. Sure, you'll open up the "attachments allowed" >window for people you trust and authorize to send those, but that's going to >typically be a small percentage of the people you'd normally maybe receive >(ordinary) E-mails from. We do research into fighting spam, not viruses and worms. How does blocking attachements going to stop spammers? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:32:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12894 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFW4022360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNrw-0005oZ-4w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12829; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNrv-0005dh-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNru-0005de-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNru-0005lB-7U; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:32:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TNrB-0005ei-63 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12663 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNrA-0005bd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:16 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TNr6-0005bK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:31:15 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620113047.00ba1b90@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:48 -0400 At 11:05 PM 6/19/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 19, 2003 at 17:42 brunner@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams in >Portland Maine) wrote: > > Barry, > > > > I sent a similar note to the nanog two days ago, with no response. > > > > I've no idea why this is of so little interest to so many people, > > I think its actually rather cool, and getting the terminating > > condition to converge to "soon" is worth working on. > >There are two major causes of spam at this point in time: > >1. Lawlessness and lack of enforcement of existing laws. > >I'll admit that I'd sympathize with anyone in law enforcement saddled >with this problem; where does one start? > >Well, first of all, where we have caught and investigated spammers >like Carmack and Ralsky it shouldn't be that hard to take logs of spam >they sent and show that they illegally used others' computers to send >it (assuming they did.) Either they had rights to the IPs it spewed >from, or they didn't. That should be a chargeable offense. > >Second, I'd honeypot them with the SWAT teams ready to go. They scan >for these infected hosts (or the hosts report to them when the >infection self-installs.) This can all be simulated with only modest >effort and arrests made. > >But the interesting part of that is not the honeypotting, it's the >prosecution. One needs the backing of a competent prosecuting body or >else it's all just an academic exercise. > >2. Microsoft operating systems which continue to be flawed and >vulnerable to viruses. > >Now that viruses have emerged (Jeem, Proxy-Guzu, sobig.a) which can >make a computer (or, more to the point, millions of computers) an >unwitting weapon against the entire net this problem has to be taken >more seriously by Microsoft. Are any of these problems solvable by technical means? Going over and over the illegality of spam does not help things, our group cannot make any legal impact anyway - we are working on technical solutions. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:42:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13625 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFg5t26170 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO1d-0006o1-7R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13570; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1b-0005o8-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1a-0005o0-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO1Z-0006jy-39; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO1T-0006in-1S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13538 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1S-0005nn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:54 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1P-0005ne-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:52 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620113427.00bbc198@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea In-Reply-To: <200306201455.h5KEtL48025301@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030620144115.GA3295@socialtools.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:35:18 -0400 At 08:55 AM 6/20/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Benjamin Geer > > > > If HTML formating is so valuable, valued and nearly universal used, > > > why haven't we seen much of it in this mailing list? > > > > Because in technical circles (and some academic ones), HTML email is > > prohibited by cultural tradition -- the same tradition that says quoting in > > replies should be done in the style I'm using here. > >That implies that HTML should be less common here, but not as absent >as it has been. We've had contributions from people who don't seem well >versed on such conventions, including top-posting and full-quoting. I got messages from the list that were picked up by SpamAssasin partly because they were HTML based, particularly some messages from Bob Wyman. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:42:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13628 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFg5726194 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO1d-0006oI-Gi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13568; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1b-0005o5-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1a-0005nz-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO1Y-0006jU-NC; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO1S-0006ii-Dj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13534 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1R-0005ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:53 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO1P-0005nd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:52 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620113556.00bbde78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail In-Reply-To: References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2258@mou1wnexm02.verisign.co m> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 At 10:25 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >The users want html formatted mail. > >Most of them have no idea what that means. > >The main reason so many users end up sending HTML-burdened E-mail is because >they don't know any better, and because it is the default. > >Most HTML-burdened E-mail generated by the VAST majority of users never >use any >of the formatting (or other such) features at all. For all of those >messages, >the HTML-burdening only just makes the messages bigger without conveoying ANY >more information. #1: Majority of users and MUAs send HTML email by default #2: Changing those settings can take months and years #3: Spammers switching to plain ASCII will take days. #4: It is easier and faster to have content filters do everything that MUAs can, than forcing users to stop using HTML email. Base64 encoding, HTML encoding, url encoded URLS, etc. can all be put into content filters. #5: There is no consent architecture in place for users to make such choices. #6: We are ignoring the problem. Blocking HTML,base64,attachements, etc. still does not fix the fundamental problem of SMTP able to accept email from forged senders. Another example would be challenge response for spam blocking. One of the problem with challenge/response is the burden is puts on the sender to have to reply to every email. That's why Eric Dean is working on a CRI protocol that can do the verification automatically. An automatic CRI protocol that is transparent to the end users is something that solves the forged sender problem, while blocking HTML does not. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:44:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13906 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFi5J27570 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO3Z-0007Ab-GQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13848; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO3Y-0005s9-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO3X-0005s6-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO3U-00074N-Pu; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:44:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TO3M-00073Z-6f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:43:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13832 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO3L-0005rj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:43:51 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TO3J-0005rg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:43:50 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KFhmKt006246 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:43:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201543.h5KFhmKt006246@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <01KXB6JAPVBE00CUGD@mauve.mrochek.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:43:48 -0600 (MDT) > From: Steven F Siirila > ... > > Netscape 7 was written by people like us, who dislike HTML email, so they've > > I can tell! Links in email header lines which used to be clickable in > Netscape 4 no longer are in Netscape 7! To visit such a URL (for example, > to unsubscribe from a list) one has to view the raw message and cut-and-paste! Are you certain you've not somehow configured Netscape to do that? I just sent a purely plaintext message without even MIME headers consisting of "test http://www.rhyolite.com/ test" to a mailbox that is read with Netscape 7.02 on a Windows ME box. Netscape on that box is reasonably locked-down, including turning off HTML. It displayed the message with the link functional. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:51:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14322 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFp4L28781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOAK-0007U8-PT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14279; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOAJ-0005yq-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOAJ-0005yn-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOAH-0007SG-Tq; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOAE-0007Rx-MA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14275 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOAD-0005yh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:57 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOAB-0005yY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620114527.00bc4c70@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Evan Harris , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:50:37 -0400 At 10:29 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, Evan Harris wrote: >Over the past few months, I've been working on a new method of blocking spam >that I've termed "Greylisting". From my testing it appears to be over 97% >effective. > >It requires no changes to the infrastructure, is resistant to spammer >adaptation, and is very effective, yet very lightweight. > >The paper outlining the method is at >http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/ and I have also posted an example >implementation for a Sendmail Milter written in perl. > >Please look it over and try to poke holes in it, but I've worked pretty hard >to make it as bulletproof as possible. The main point of this method seems to be: --snip--- "The Greylisting method is very simple. It only looks at three pieces of information (which we will refer to as a "triplet" from now on) about any particular mail delivery attempt: The IP address of the host attempting the delivery The envelope sender address The envelope recipient address From this, we now have a unique triplet for identifying a mail "relationship". With this data, we simply follow a basic rule, which is: "If we have never seen this triplet before, then refuse this delivery and any others that may come within a certain period of time with a temporary failure. " --snip--- This proposal has been discussed before by someone else (I forget who), and is similar to the one used by TitanKey. The underlying assumption is that spammers will not retry message delivery. This may very well change very quickly. As I stated before, we need to look to developing a "consent architecture" for spam control like the charter says. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 11:59:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14821 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KFx7x31166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOI7-00086b-7e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14773; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOI5-00068Z-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOI5-00068W-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOI1-0007zB-49; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOH6-0007yf-PK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:58:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14741 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOH5-00067y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:58:03 -0400 Received: from mail3.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.231] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOH4-00067q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:58:03 -0400 Received: from virscan1.asianet.co.th (HELO mx.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 22:57:30 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.203.144.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.203.144]) (envelope-sender ) by mx2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jun 2003 22:57:19 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:57:28 +0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:18 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> 1) Their spam will be less effective; > >How? Much/most html spam includes webbugs to verify identity of the mark and so validate the address Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:03:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15038 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KG33701406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOLv-0000Mb-6F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15011; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOLt-0006Cz-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOLt-0006Cw-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOLt-0000J6-44; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOKy-0000HK-D1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:02:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14971 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOKx-0006Bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:02:03 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOKv-0006Bg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:02:02 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KG1tk4020910 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:01:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201601.h5KG1tk4020910@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:01:55 -0600 (MDT) > From: Evan Harris > ... > http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/ and I have also posted an example > implementation for a Sendmail Milter written in perl. > ... To deal with sharing the database among servers, have you considered any of the obvious tactics? I'm thinking of such as NFS (with NFS clients and servers that do proper locking) or an inter-system protocol for sharing the triples and their timestamps? "Dictionary attack" is a more common term for what you call "trolling." The biggest problem I see with the tactic is "scaling." It's the same as the biggest problem with spam, which can be phrased as "What if everyone does it?" Contemplate the effects on very large mail servers. A smaller but still significant problem is that the mechanism addresses only the current spam problem that involves literal crimes. The big corporate spammers run proper SMTP clients that retransmit. This tactic will only increase their extremely low per-target costs by a little bit. Still, it appears to be a worthy tool. Running code and technical details count outmatch any amount of enthusiastic sales talk, bluster, and arm waving. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:10:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15173 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGAA703189 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOSo-0000pM-2e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15156; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOSm-0006Fa-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOSm-0006FX-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOSf-0000my-78; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOSK-0000lh-Bn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15151 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOSJ-0006FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:39 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOSE-0006FO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:34 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABS44906; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJA18204; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <001801c33746$567ce550$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:09:32 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id MAA15173 > Authentication tokens typically require special software > provisions on the part of both the sender and the recipient. You're new to the list and thus have probably missed some of the earlier discussion. While authentication tokens *typically* require software support at both sender and receiver, there is a class of them that only requires software support on the receiver side. These are the "single user" addresses. I might, for instance, create an address that authorized you to send me mail. Such an address would look something like: "bob+1092837@example.com". The "token" part of this address would be a hash of your "From:" address. With such an address, you don't need any software on your side to pass the token. > The whitelist I propose NEVER needs to be sent to anybody, > ... only just the point where the filtering is done. Even if never sent to anyone, there is still a privacy concern with whitelists since if they are explicit lists, they provide a single list of all of your correspondents. In many cases, people will feel that compiling such a list is a risk to their privacy since such a list would be open to inspection by government agencies under some circumstances and to employees of an ISP if the list is maintained remotely. Even if only maintained on your personal machine, it could be embarrassing if people with physical access to your machine could discover the full universe of your correspondents. For more information on "single user" addresses or other mechanisms to pass tokens with software support on only one side of the exchange, see my comments in: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05395. html bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:13:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15285 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGD3T03871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOVb-00010M-7K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15263; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOVZ-0006HB-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOVZ-0006H8-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOVZ-0000xK-47; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOVV-0000x8-29 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:12:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15255 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOVT-0006Gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:12:55 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOVT-0006Gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:12:55 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19TOVM-0005Fv-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:12:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting To: "Evan Harris" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:12:48 +0100 > Please look it over and try to poke holes in it, but I've worked pretty > hard > to make it as bulletproof as possible. You mention Exim and sender callback verification, it's probably worth pointing out that this isn't default behaviour and the Exim docs suggest that: "This facility should be used with care, because it adds a lot of resource usage to the cost of verifying an address." Exim also provides a "callout_defer_ok" options to allow success in the face of a temporary failure. Whatever... any spam that *is* retried after the "block" is aged gets through. Or have I got that wrong? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:18:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15470 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGI8B04823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOaV-0001Fi-V7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15450; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOaU-0006Ji-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOaU-0006Jf-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOaO-0001Ch-Ke; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOZX-0001CM-RC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:17:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15424 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOZW-0006J8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:17:06 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOZT-0006J4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:17:05 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620121442.00babe10@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Jon Kyme" , "Evan Harris" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Cc: "ASRG" In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:16:42 -0400 At 05:12 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > Please look it over and try to poke holes in it, but I've worked pretty > > hard > > to make it as bulletproof as possible. >[..] > > >Whatever... any spam that *is* retried after the "block" is aged gets >through. Or have I got that wrong? Lets say a spammers has gained control over a specific IP address for an X amount of time. He normally sends out 1M messages via that IP. So now to get around this block, he will send out 2M messages retrying delivery. This increases his costs slightly but not to the point where it becomes unprofitable. The reason why spammers have not tried this approach yet become this blocking method has not been widespread. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:19:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15527 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGJ2n05285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:19:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TObO-0001NA-Sn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:19:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15505; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TObN-0006Kh-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:19:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TObM-0006Ke-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:19:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TObN-0001K9-6f; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOan-0001JT-9x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15463 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOam-0006K3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:24 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOak-0006K0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KGIDOQ019829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:18:13 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <200306201601.h5KG1tk4020910@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:18:13 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > To deal with sharing the database among servers, have you considered > any of the obvious tactics? I'm thinking of such as NFS (with NFS > clients and servers that do proper locking) or an inter-system protocol > for sharing the triples and their timestamps? Depends on the database implementation, but since I used mysql, sharing is as easy as opening another connection to the db. No need for nfs or file locking or all of that. > The biggest problem I see with the tactic is "scaling." It's the same > as the biggest problem with spam, which can be phrased as "What if > everyone does it?" Contemplate the effects on very large mail servers. Well, keep in mind that the longer you run the system, the more "relationships" that are observed and whitelisted. The majority of the impact is in the first few days of running the system. After that, I should think it would scale very well. There are other ways of avoiding it also. Change the code so that you don't block any emails but do record the triplets. After running the system for a couple weeks, then add in the delays. Most of the legit relationships will already have been learned without any blocking. The drawback is spammers will have been learned too, but this is an easy way to minimize the new system impact. > A smaller but still significant problem is that the mechanism addresses > only the current spam problem that involves literal crimes. The big > corporate spammers run proper SMTP clients that retransmit. This > tactic will only increase their extremely low per-target costs by a > little bit. The semi-legit spammers are better handled through dns blacklists and other methods. I'm not too concerned with spam from these sources, since those can be (and probably will be soon) resolved with legislation. My concern is for the fly-by-night spammer that forges headers, and this should work pretty well for them. > Still, it appears to be a worthy tool. Running code and technical > details count outmatch any amount of enthusiastic sales talk, bluster, > and arm waving. Thanks. I've been very happy with the results, as have the users on my test systems. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:22:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15655 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGM4A05931 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOeK-0001XY-91 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15631; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOeI-0006MK-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOeH-0006MD-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOeH-0001Tz-Kf; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOe7-0001TK-Ix for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15626 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOe6-0006MA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:50 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOe5-0006M7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:49 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXH42217; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJA20720; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <001e01c33748$0f6053d0$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=SHA1; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C33726.85F840B0" Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:52 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C33726.85F840B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gordon Peterson wrote: > But it's VERY rare that anyone legitimately needs to send an > attachment to some recipient without prior arrangement or consent. It should be noted that if you attach a digital signature to a mail message then it will often appear as an attachment... Some "attachments" aren't bad. bob wyman ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C33726.85F840B0 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIII4zCCAnIw ggHboAMCAQICAwoFYjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCBkjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdl c3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMQ8wDQYDVQQKEwZUaGF3dGUxHTAbBgNVBAsT FENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNlcnZpY2VzMSgwJgYDVQQDEx9QZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBSU0EgMjAw MC44LjMwMB4XDTAzMDUyNzE2MjQxMloXDTA0MDUyNjE2MjQxMlowPjEfMB0GA1UEAxMWVGhhd3Rl IEZyZWVtYWlsIE1lbWJlcjEbMBkGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYMYm9iQHd5bWFuLnVzMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDQEN8nSjIGJ5stDwq4+rLQXpVJVCtN1dfdADqAnRcGBMnFAk3XyuXY 9GJBxakGd2GjSmkaE2kf35ZpdvfR8RTkAHKJov2c5G1srbu3GyZw4LNVVnnj35nuO9fd7CWIkJrg FbNy/JFaVmVAEDporUh9K4ZuOEOXMREdbor90/IkewIDAQABoykwJzAXBgNVHREEEDAOgQxib2JA d3ltYW4udXMwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQDJn0yPJIdDglRWogIjdqXe 9zZLsJLeFRJa5OLzeaG7t7qFJXj3xKcdPBQ2FktobDqgh1hHCZeyDtqlRSvS1tQIzQz9nUTRCi+i oVqyJ5KIOxIfLgOAW6iQnPF6EgIdBBrucZblArM+BiqOafalNLqitZrvcPA9s2xWYT0NwFEWvDCC Ay0wggKWoAMCAQICAQAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgdExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxX ZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgGA1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRp bmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMgRGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1Ro YXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1h aWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw05NjAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yMDEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIHRMQswCQYDVQQG EwJaQTEVMBMGA1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlDYXBlIFRvd24xGjAYBgNVBAoT EVRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nMSgwJgYDVQQLEx9DZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIFNlcnZpY2VzIERpdmlz aW9uMSQwIgYDVQQDExtUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgQ0ExKzApBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEW HHBlcnNvbmFsLWZyZWVtYWlsQHRoYXd0ZS5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGB ANRp19SwlGRbcelH2AxRtupykbCEXn0tDY97Et+FJXUodDpCLGMnn5V7S+9+GYcdhuqj3bnOlmQa whRuRKx85o/oTQ9xH0A4pgCjh3j2+ZSGXq3qwF5269kUo11uenwMpUtVfwYZKX+emibVars4JAhq mMex2qOYkf152+VaxBy5AgMBAAGjEzARMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAD gYEAx+ySfk749ZalZ2IqpPBNEWDQb41gWGGsJrtSNVwIzzD7qEqWih9iQiOMFw/0umScF6xHKd+d mF7SbGBxXKKs3Hnj524ARx+1DSjoAp3kmv0T9KbZfLH43F8jJgmRgHPQFBveQ6mDJfLmnC8Vyv6m q4oHdYsM3VGEa+T40c53ooEwggM4MIICoaADAgECAhBmRXK3zHT1z2N2RYTQLpEBMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBBAUAMIHRMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMGA1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlD YXBlIFRvd24xGjAYBgNVBAoTEVRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nMSgwJgYDVQQLEx9DZXJ0aWZpY2F0 aW9uIFNlcnZpY2VzIERpdmlzaW9uMSQwIgYDVQQDExtUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwg Q0ExKzApBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHHBlcnNvbmFsLWZyZWVtYWlsQHRoYXd0ZS5jb20wHhcNMDAwODMw MDAwMDAwWhcNMDQwODI3MjM1OTU5WjCBkjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4g Q2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMQ8wDQYDVQQKEwZUaGF3dGUxHTAbBgNVBAsTFENlcnRp ZmljYXRlIFNlcnZpY2VzMSgwJgYDVQQDEx9QZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBSU0EgMjAwMC44LjMw MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDeMzKmY8cJJUU+0m54J2eBxdqIGYKXDuNEKYpj NSptcDz63K737nRvMLwzkH/5NHGgo22Y8cNPomXbDfpL8dbdYaX5hc1VmjUanZJ1qCeu2HL5ugL2 17CR3hzpq+AYA6h8Q0JQUYeDPPA5tJtUihOH/7ObnUlmAC0JieyUa+mhaQIDAQABo04wTDApBgNV HREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMS0yOTcwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIB ADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCAQYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAMbFLR135AXHl9VNsXXnWPZjAJhNigSKn EvgilegbSbcnewQ5uvzm8iTrkfq97A0qOPdQVahs9w2tTBu8A/S166JHn2yiDFiNMUIJEWywGmnR KxKyQF1q+XnQ6i4l3Yrk/NsNH50C81rbyjz2ROomaYd/SJ7OpZ/nhNjJYmKtBcYxggNpMIIDZQIB ATCBmjCBkjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2Fw ZSBUb3duMQ8wDQYDVQQKEwZUaGF3dGUxHTAbBgNVBAsTFENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNlcnZpY2VzMSgw JgYDVQQDEx9QZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBSU0EgMjAwMC44LjMwAgMKBWIwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCC AiQwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDMwNjIwMTYyMTQ5 WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUPFlFbr8A67KId5SFKX82oB/guDswZwYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMVowWDAK BggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZI hvcNAwICASgwBwYFKw4DAhowCgYIKoZIhvcNAgUwgasGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDGBnTCBmjCBkjELMAkG A1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMQ8wDQYD VQQKEwZUaGF3dGUxHTAbBgNVBAsTFENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNlcnZpY2VzMSgwJgYDVQQDEx9QZXJz b25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBSU0EgMjAwMC44LjMwAgMKBWIwga0GCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGdoIGaMIGS MQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMGA1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlDYXBlIFRvd24x DzANBgNVBAoTBlRoYXd0ZTEdMBsGA1UECxMUQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2VydmljZXMxKDAmBgNVBAMT H1BlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIFJTQSAyMDAwLjguMzACAwoFYjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASBgGGC elpIBLYHFgv5rmSpWtK21jXoQln10XC2ztaOA6tdYYCBoDj8Q3KhMT58QbEUHxkc0/JgkjBAfcXL +JV13r1bkAVyYx4TtCOEgZCUyfBtRjOqvT+hmJw1XwVqSxBb0xoM3IzSpOXqM5OhBr7R0PG1emAo vsGFpDFpTKYUOyNWAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C33726.85F840B0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:22:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15654 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGM4D05914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOeK-0001XJ-5X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15630; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOeI-0006MJ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOeH-0006ME-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOeH-0001TV-8X; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOdq-0001T6-J1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15618 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOdp-0006M2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:33 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOdo-0006Lz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:21:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KGLUOQ021368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:21:30 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Jon Kyme cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:21:30 -0500 (CDT) > You mention Exim and sender callback verification, it's probably > worth pointing out that this isn't default behaviour and the Exim docs > suggest that: > "This facility should be used with care, because it adds a lot of resource > usage to the cost of verifying an address." > Exim also provides a "callout_defer_ok" options to allow success in the > face of a temporary failure. Well, all I know is that sourceforge bit me with this, which is why I made that modification. Since my main target for using this is techie types, not good to have problems with sourceforge. :) > Whatever... any spam that *is* retried after the "block" is aged gets > through. Or have I got that wrong? Yes, unless it is blocked by other means, like dns blacklists or normal spam catching methods. But letting the block age requires spammers stick to an IP address, which makes the dns blacklists work better. Still results in farily good success. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:34:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16428 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGY4b09057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOpw-0002M0-OC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16390; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOpv-0006U5-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOpu-0006U2-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOps-0002Jo-T9; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:34:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOov-0002Ir-KM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16358 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOou-0006TX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:00 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOot-0006TU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:32:59 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABS47752; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJA22837; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:32:54 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Vernon Schryver'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <003101c33749$9f801ee0$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620113427.00bbc198@std5.imagineis.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id MAA16428 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I got messages from the list that were picked up > by SpamAssasin partly because they were HTML based, > particularly some messages from Bob Wyman. Well, I am not a spammer... I'll admit that I send HTML more often than I *need* to. However, it is sometimes necessary and useful. For instance, the list of spam related patents that I recently sent out is much more readable as HTML than it would have been had I sent it as plaintext since the HTML format allows me to hide the URLs that lead to each patent document. I had, in fact, originally compiled the list as ASCII but it was such an ugly mess that I went back and did it again in HTML. See: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05356. html Sometimes, HTML is very useful... And using HTML rather than ASCII can be a service to the readers of your mail. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:48:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16972 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGm4G13039 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TP3U-0003OE-RM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16953; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP3T-0006ba-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP3S-0006bX-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TP3R-0003MK-Hk; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TP2k-0003Ll-Vd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:47:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16913 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP2j-0006bF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:47:17 -0400 Received: from mail.cdt.org ([206.112.85.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP2i-0006b0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:47:16 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.19] (66.safeclick.net [63.119.245.66]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848344900DB for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: john@mail.cdt.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:47:15 -0400 At 11:18 AM -0500 6/20/03, Evan Harris wrote: >Well, keep in mind that the longer you run the system, the more >"relationships" that are observed and whitelisted. As with any whitelist, there are potential privacy concerns, but these concerns would be greater here because of the additional data tracked in the database. Of greatest concern would be: relay_ip # sending relay in IPV4 ascii dotted quad notation mail_from # ascii address of sender rcpt_to # the recipient address. blocked_count # num of blocked attempts to deliver passed_count # num of passed attempts we have allowed create_time # timestamp of creation time of this record last_update # timestamp of last change to this record [http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/source/dbdef.sql] This extra data would provide a useful "permanent" record that would be subject to criminal or civil subpoena. Some users would gladly choose to allow this type of database to be created if it effectively reduces spam, but users would need to be fully appraised of the privacy risks. John _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 12:52:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17047 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KGq4s13894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TP7M-0003c1-S5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17038; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP7L-0006cv-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP7K-0006cs-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TP7J-0003Z0-MB; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TP70-0003Yi-4Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17029 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP6y-0006ck-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:40 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TP6x-0006cP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:39 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1D1F1232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:09 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030620165109.GB3578@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <20030620144115.GA3295@socialtools.net> <200306201455.h5KEtL48025301@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306201455.h5KEtL48025301@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:09 +0100 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 08:55:21AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > You've said you have access to lots of mailing lists where HTML mail > is the norm. Would it be too hard to look at the next 50 representative > messages? OK, here are counts of non-spam messages from a list for people working on a non-technical political campaign, for four months that had particularly high traffic (September, October and December 2002, and January 2003). Total messages: 144 Plain text (including quoted-printable): 94 Total HTML: 48 'Unnecessary' HTML (just P and DIV tags): 23 'Useful' HTML (e.g. with bold and italic, and different font sizes): 25 Entire message in base64: 2 Messages (among the above) with attachments: 4 I included quoted-printable in the plain-text category because it was needed by several people posting messages in languages other than English. The archives are here: http://lists.southspace.net/pipermail/esf-uk-info Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 13:02:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17529 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KH26l15471 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPH4-00041S-RJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17478; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPH3-0006gU-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPH2-0006gQ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPGz-0003yK-LF; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPGh-0003y6-LT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:01:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17472 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPGf-0006gM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:01:41 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPGe-0006gH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:01:41 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KH1aV5011348 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201701.h5KH1aV5011348@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:01:36 -0600 (MDT) > From: Evan Harris > ... > > The biggest problem I see with the tactic is "scaling." It's the same > > as the biggest problem with spam, which can be phrased as "What if > > everyone does it?" Contemplate the effects on very large mail servers. > > Well, keep in mind that the longer you run the system, the more > "relationships" that are observed and whitelisted. The majority of the > impact is in the first few days of running the system. After that, I should > think it would scale very well. That makes sense for a small site, but I wonder if AOL or Microsoft would agree. > There are other ways of avoiding it also. Change the code so that you don't > block any emails but do record the triplets. After running the system for a > couple weeks, then add in the delays. Most of the legit relationships will > already have been learned without any blocking. ... Again, that's plausible for a small company or a vanity domain, but I suspect an ISP would have other views. (A system handling fewer than 50,000 to 150,000 mail messages/day is small today.) > > A smaller but still significant problem is that the mechanism addresses > > only the current spam problem that involves literal crimes. The big > > corporate spammers run proper SMTP clients that retransmit. This > > tactic will only increase their extremely low per-target costs by a > > little bit. > > The semi-legit spammers are better handled through dns blacklists and other > methods. I'm not too concerned with spam from these sources, since those > can be (and probably will be soon) resolved with legislation. My bet is the opposite and that the employers of legislators will never let them outlaw "mainsleaze" even as they instruct them to outlaw the current spammers. To prove the point at an extreme, consider the likelihood of congresscritters outlawing their own spam. > My concern is for the fly-by-night spammer that forges headers, and this > should work pretty well for them. ... I agree, although I find your 95% effectiveness results surprisingly high. Other people who have tried the same idea have reported significantly lower numbers, although still worthwhile. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 13:19:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18061 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHJCX19062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPXc-0004xN-80 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18033; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPXa-0006ns-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPXZ-0006np-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPXQ-0004vM-De; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPWv-0004v1-0U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:18:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17974 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPWt-0006nK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:18:27 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPWs-0006nH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:18:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KHIDOQ010896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:17 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: John Morris cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:18:13 -0500 (CDT) > As with any whitelist, there are potential privacy concerns, but > these concerns would be greater here because of the additional data > tracked in the database. Of greatest concern would be: I disagree. One of the nice things about this method is that it keeps very little profiling info. It certainly doesn't look at the body or even the headers of the messages. The only statistics kept are things that could easily be retrieved from the mailer logs anyway. > This extra data would provide a useful "permanent" record that would > be subject to criminal or civil subpoena. Some users would gladly > choose to allow this type of database to be created if it effectively > reduces spam, but users would need to be fully appraised of the > privacy risks. I would agree that users should be made aware of any possible privacy risks, but most users are already aware that mailer level statistics are kept, and this is just the same thing, just a different format. If anyone wanted to, cleaning the database of long term info would be simple. But it wouldn't help anything, because all the info there could be gotten from the mail logs anyway. If your concern is the longevity of the information, consider running this as a nightly script: DELETE FROM relaytofrom WHERE record_expires < NOW(); UPDATE relaytofrom SET create_time = NOW(); UPDATE relaytofrom SET blocked_count = 1 WHERE blocked_count > 1; UPDATE relaytofrom SET passed_count = 1 WHERE passed_count > 1; UPDATE relaytofrom SET aborted_count = 1 WHERE aborted_count > 1; With these, there is no data kept in the database for longer than the longest expiration time, which is a little over a month. Most mail servers keep logs for longer than that anyway. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 13:37:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19687 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHb8b23848 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPoy-0006CU-EH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19644; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPow-00079M-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPov-00079G-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPor-00067b-NR; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPoT-000668-PC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19615 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPoR-00078f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:35 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPoR-00078c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KHaQOQ015599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:36:27 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <200306201701.h5KH1aV5011348@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:36:26 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > Well, keep in mind that the longer you run the system, the more > > "relationships" that are observed and whitelisted. The majority of the > > impact is in the first few days of running the system. After that, I should > > think it would scale very well. > > That makes sense for a small site, but I wonder if AOL or Microsoft > would agree. The fact that they have systems that can handle those volumes of mail means that they also probably already have the needed infrastructure in the way of distributed scalable database backends. In the overall picture of handling any individual mail, the checks for greylisting is a tiny amount. Multiply that by a million mails an hour, and it's still the same small percent, which means it should be straightforward to implement it in a manner that scales with whatever infrastructure is already in place. Places like AOL and yahoo already use databases to store their user accounts, and all the contacts for those user accounts. Reimplement it to take advantage of those existing databases, and the impact becomes even less. > My bet is the opposite and that the employers of legislators will > never let them outlaw "mainsleaze" even as they instruct them to outlaw > the current spammers. To prove the point at an extreme, consider the > likelihood of congresscritters outlawing their own spam. So let them be handled by blacklists. In either case, the fact that they are trying to be legit means they are easily blocked since the headers should not be forged. > I agree, although I find your 95% effectiveness results surprisingly > high. Other people who have tried the same idea have reported > significantly lower numbers, although still worthwhile. That may be due to the fact that I'm counting all blocked deliveries in my totals. Many delivery attempts are to non-existant users, which would have been blocked by sendmail anyway, but aren't yet at the point that the milter gets the info. I didn't have an easy way of eliminating those, but don't think I should have anyway. I don't think that the fact that the spam may have also been caught by another method (even one so simple as if the user exists) should not be counted against it. It still blocked the mail before that check was done. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 13:45:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20026 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHj5t26300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPwf-0006q7-SK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19975; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPwd-0007E5-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPwc-0007E0-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPwb-0006kI-PH; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPYL-00053H-KT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18079 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPYJ-0006oZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:55 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPYI-0006oW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:19:54 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:20:11 -0700 At 10:29 AM 6/20/03 -0500, Evan Harris wrote: > >Over the past few months, I've been working on a new method of blocking spam >that I've termed "Greylisting". From my testing it appears to be over 97% >effective. > >It requires no changes to the infrastructure, is resistant to spammer >adaptation, and is very effective, yet very lightweight. > >The paper outlining the method is at >http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/ and I have also posted an example >implementation for a Sendmail Milter written in perl. > >Please look it over and try to poke holes in it, but I've worked pretty hard >to make it as bulletproof as possible. > My summary of the greylisting; Tempfail all new (IP+sender+recipient) triplets. I only made one pass through the paper, but it looks pretty good to me. 97% feels high for this technique, but it's looks clean enough and safe enough that I'll run some tests on my own and see if I get similar numbers. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 13:45:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20028 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHj6h26322 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPwg-0006qT-Au for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19978; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPwd-0007E7-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPwc-0007E1-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPwb-0006jo-D9; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TOpD-0002JE-K2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16368 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOpC-0006Ti-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:18 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TOpB-0006TS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:33:17 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5KGa2712434 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:36:02 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/10) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <321021999.20030620093246@brandenburg.com> To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620121442.00babe10@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620121442.00babe10@std5.imagineis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:32:46 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YS> Lets say a spammers has gained control over a specific IP address for an X YS> amount of time. He normally sends out 1M messages via that IP. So now to YS> get around this block, he will send out 2M messages retrying delivery. This YS> increases his costs slightly but not to the point where it becomes YS> unprofitable. right. YS> The reason why spammers have not tried this approach yet YS> become this blocking method has not been widespread. right. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 13:48:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20224 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHm5a27592 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPzZ-0007Ax-4L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20191; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzW-0007Gp-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzV-0007Gl-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPzV-00074l-Lu; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPzP-00074U-RP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20179 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzN-0007Ga-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:53 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzL-0007GP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:52 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KHllwA020633 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:47:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201747.h5KHllwA020633@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:47:47 -0600 (MDT) > From: Evan Harris > > As with any whitelist, there are potential privacy concerns, but > > these concerns would be greater here because of the additional data > > tracked in the database. Of greatest concern would be: > > I disagree. One of the nice things about this method is that it keeps > very little profiling info. It certainly doesn't look at the body or > even the headers of the messages. The only statistics kept are things that > could easily be retrieved from the mailer logs anyway. Please reconsider. Contemplate the value of knowing that Bill Gates has recieved a message from Steve Case (or vice versa) even without knowing the contents. Your database doesn't contain messages, but traffic analysis can be very valuable. That's why "pen recorders" are used by the police. It's why the legitimacy of some traffic analysis of email and phone calls is a continuing issue in federal criminal court cases. > ... > I would agree that users should be made aware of any possible privacy risks, > but most users are already aware that mailer level statistics are kept, and > this is just the same thing, just a different format. That mailer logs are also quite sensitive does not make your records less sensitive. Most users are only a little less clue challenged about their privacy than about whether their mail involves HTML. But we're not most users and must pay attention such issues. > ... > With these, there is no data kept in the database for longer than the > longest expiration time, which is a little over a month. That sounds like a very good idea. > Most mail servers > keep logs for longer than that anyway. "Most" is a strong word, particularly on issues like this that are subject to corporate "document retention" policies. Those policies should be called "burn after reading policies" because they require the desctruction of archives and backups lest they be used in future court cases. Note also that some few librarians are burning records as soon as books are returned to avoid their use by snoopers. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:00:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20833 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KI0AY30829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQBG-00081A-8g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20810; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQBD-0007Pg-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQBD-0007Pc-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQB7-0007yz-GT; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQA8-0007xp-Q0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:59:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20757 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQA6-0007Ou-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:58:58 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQA5-0007Oa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:58:57 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 461B8232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:58:26 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030620175826.GB3811@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <20030620165109.GB3578@socialtools.net> <200306201736.h5KHa5Kr019614@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306201736.h5KHa5Kr019614@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:58:26 +0100 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:36:05AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > Not to be difficult, just to see if I agreed, I looked at October, 2002 > Of the 42 total (if I counted right), I found 6 that had real HTML > formatting. Three of those were what might be called formal presentation > documents intended for bulk distribution (e.g. seminar timetables) > instead of person-to-person or person-to-mailing-list email. Distribution of seminar timetables (some of which were drafts for discussion, IIRC) was one of the purposes of that mailing list. (It was a list for the UK organisers of the European Social Forum, who needed to exchange information about the seminars they were organising.) > Was that month unusual or did I count wrong? That month was unusual in having a lot of plain-text messages; the number of HTML messages (of both kinds) was more consistent from month to month. > Do you agree that documents such > as the seminar timetables aren't strictly admissible? I certainly > agree that HTML is appropriate for those documents, but they're also > legitimate bulk mail that should be subject to white-listing. Lists that people use for organising events often include such documents, which then get discussed, revised, and reposted. In any case, some anti-spam strategies require white-listing in order to accommodate mailing lists at all. (Which seems OK to me.) If you often receive event announcements (as I do), and therefore have to read them very quickly, having the most important bits in red or in boldface (as in a few messages on that list) can be quite helpful. Also, on that particular list, people sometimes posted documents in plain text, or in unadorned ('useless') HTML, which would have benefitted from some HTML formatting, e.g. documents with headings and sub-headings. Not just seminar timetables, but meeting summaries, and drafts of official declarations. Typically people used all caps for the headings, where a bigger font might have been more readable. > Many of the real HTML messages included plaintext versions. > How do you suppose their authors would have responded if it were > suggested that HTML was a bad idea? I guess it depends on whether a really convincing case can be made that HTML is harmful, and whether it outweighs the perceived benefits. In my experience, telling people that they shouldn't use HTML for legitimate purposes, because spammers and virus writers also use it, doesn't come across as very logical. > It should be noted that the Mailman archive of that list might have > discouraged the use of HTML. The ugliness of HTML in that vintage of > Mailman archives is one of the reasons why I've configured Mailman to > reject HTML submissions to the DCC mailing lists. I know, those archives are horrible. It's one reason why I've given up on Mailman altogether, and switched to Sympa (http://www.sympa.org). Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:02:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21016 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KI24231701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQD6-0008FD-Df for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20964; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQD3-0007S2-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQD2-0007Rv-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQD3-000897-Oy; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQCx-00088A-FW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20959 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQCv-0007Rq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:53 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQCt-0007Ri-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:52 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KI1mvL022637 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:01:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201801.h5KI1mvL022637@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:01:48 -0600 (MDT) > From: Evan Harris > ... > > That makes sense for a small site, but I wonder if AOL or Microsoft > > would agree. > > The fact that they have systems that can handle those volumes of mail means > that they also probably already have the needed infrastructure in the way of > distributed scalable database backends. It's one thing to have machinery that can send a half a billion messages per day with currently typical queue delays. It like something quite different to have machinery that could send 500M messages/day, many retransmitted 1-3 times more than currently and spending 1000 times longer in the queue. If all of AOL's peers used your system, a lot of AOL's mail would start spending 10s or 100s of minutes instead of seconds in AOLs queue. The cost of a retransmission is about the same as the cost of sending a message. Given an average message size of ~5K bytes, most of the round trips as well as all of the DNS and TCP SYN delays in an SMTP transaction are burned by the end of the Rcpt_TO command. Contrary to common naive calculations, the 6 packets and 3 or 4 round trips of the DATA command are often the tail of the dog. > In the overall picture of handling any individual mail, the checks for > greylisting is a tiny amount. Multiply that by a million mails an hour, and > it's still the same small percent, which means it should be straightforward > to implement it in a manner that scales with whatever infrastructure is > already in place. > > Places like AOL and yahoo already use databases to store their user > accounts, and all the contacts for those user accounts. Reimplement it to > take advantage of those existing databases, and the impact becomes even > less. I'm not talking about the costs for the recipients running your system but for the senders. > > My bet is the opposite and that the employers of legislators will > > never let them outlaw "mainsleaze" even as they instruct them to outlaw > > the current spammers. To prove the point at an extreme, consider the > > likelihood of congresscritters outlawing their own spam. > > So let them be handled by blacklists. In either case, the fact that they > are trying to be legit means they are easily blocked since the headers > should not be forged. ... Blacklists do not work for "mainsleaze" because a significant part and usually most of those spews is not spam because it is wanted by its targets. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:03:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21114 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KI35C32446 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQE5-0008RF-Bg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21091; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQE3-0007Sz-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQE2-0007Sw-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQE1-0008O9-Dg; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQDT-0008Na-8w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20984 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQDR-0007SR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:25 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQDP-0007SI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:24 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620140127.00bc4a78@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Dave Crocker , "ASRG" , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:57 -0400 At 09:32 AM 6/20/2003 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >YS> Lets say a spammers has gained control over a specific IP address for an X >YS> amount of time. He normally sends out 1M messages via that IP. So now to >YS> get around this block, he will send out 2M messages retrying delivery. >This >YS> increases his costs slightly but not to the point where it becomes >YS> unprofitable. > >right. > > >YS> The reason why spammers have not tried this approach yet >YS> become this blocking method has not been widespread. > >right. Lets say to fight this spammer trick email hosts will now reject messages after 2 times, then the spammers adjusting and sending 3M messages, now reject value stands at 3 times, spammers send 4M messages, ad infinitum. This would increase costs of sending email since it would have to be stored longed and retried longer. HOWEVER, at a certain point (number of rejects), spamming will become too costly although I think that reject point is very large. Also, there is a reject point at which the sending MTAs will think that the message is really undeliverable. The question is where two of these points intersect. This sounds like something Eric Brunner was discussing at one point. This is basically an economic approach - you are increasing the cost of each sent message by forcing the sender to store it longer and use more network resources sending it. The same goal would be accomplished by adding email postage but this approach works without changing the existing infrastructure. What you are basically doing is imposing cost on ALL users of the system by forcing them to use network resources multiple times. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:07:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21285 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KI75700790 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQHx-0000Ce-6d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21248; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHu-0007VH-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHt-0007VD-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQHt-00006h-DD; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQHd-00005F-7X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21226 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHa-0007Un-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:42 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHZ-0007Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:42 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KI6aJp025841 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:06:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201806.h5KI6aJp025841@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <003201c33754$14c12a50$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:06:36 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Bob Wyman" > > 'Unnecessary' HTML (just P and DIV tags): 23 > This is not necessarily a valid measure of utility. It is often > the case that HTML is displayed using fonts which are different from > those used to display "ASCII" messages. Given that those fonts are often > variable pitch and given that variable pitch fonts are known to be (for > most people) much more readable, one can argue that there is utility in > sending HTML formatted messages even if that HTML doesn't include > special rendering of text. The utility comes from sending the message in > a format which is likely to be easier to read as well as to be more > readily understood by the reader. That's wrong. If you as a mail receiver like variable pitch fonts, then you can have them with common MUAs with plaintext mail simply by configuring your MUA. If you don't like variable pitch fonts, then you also don't need to see them with HTML messages that don't specify a font. Do you think much HTML mail specifies a font by other than or a numeric size? My impression is otherwise. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:07:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21288 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KI75X00808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQHx-0000Cx-IJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21249; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHu-0007VK-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHt-0007VE-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQHs-00005l-Nv; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:07:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQHJ-0008WQ-7E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21209 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHG-0007UW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:22 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQHG-0007UL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:06:22 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:06:19 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <20030620180619.GA5652@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <01KXB6JAPVBE00CUGD@mauve.mrochek.com> <200306201543.h5KFhmKt006246@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306201543.h5KFhmKt006246@calcite.rhyolite.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:06:19 -0500 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:43:48AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Steven F Siirila > > > ... > > > Netscape 7 was written by people like us, who dislike HTML email, so they've > > > > I can tell! Links in email header lines which used to be clickable in > > Netscape 4 no longer are in Netscape 7! To visit such a URL (for example, > > to unsubscribe from a list) one has to view the raw message and cut-and-paste! > > Are you certain you've not somehow configured Netscape to do that? > I just sent a purely plaintext message without even MIME headers consisting > of "test http://www.rhyolite.com/ test" to a mailbox that is read with > Netscape 7.02 on a Windows ME box. Netscape on that box is reasonably > locked-down, including turning off HTML. It displayed the message > with the link functional. Are you talking about header lines or body lines? I'm talking about headers. > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:18:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22020 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KIIBq03829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQSh-0000zg-7q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21965; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQSe-0007hR-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQSe-0007hO-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQSX-0000wG-8K; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQRY-0000vH-V4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:17:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21854 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQRW-0007fO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:16:58 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQRV-0007fL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:16:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KIGsOQ026680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:16:55 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Scott Nelson cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Scott Nelson wrote: > I only made one pass through the paper, but it looks pretty good to me. > 97% feels high for this technique, but it's looks clean enough and > safe enough that I'll run some tests on my own and see if I get similar > numbers. > > Scott Nelson Please send me an email and let me know how your tests come out. You'll get best results when you complement this method with using dns blacklists or other methods of IP based blocking for known spammers. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:25:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22527 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KIPSB05008 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQZk-0001Ih-Fj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22464; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQZh-0007mi-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQZh-0007mf-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQZI-0001Fd-QX; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:25:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQZ7-0001DF-A7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:24:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22383 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:24:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQZ4-0007m7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:24:46 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQZ3-0007m4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:24:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KIOaOQ028636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:24:36 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <200306201747.h5KHllwA020633@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:24:36 -0500 (CDT) > > I would agree that users should be made aware of any possible privacy risks, > > but most users are already aware that mailer level statistics are kept, and > > this is just the same thing, just a different format. > > That mailer logs are also quite sensitive does not make your records > less sensitive. The only issue I had with the original statement was the claim that this method should cause greater concern for privacy. While there are privacy concerns with any statistics, I wouldn't consider this method any more of a danger than normal server logs, since nothing is kept that couldn't be found there. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:27:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23044 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KIR5J06098 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQbJ-0001aH-De for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22819; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQbF-0007nm-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQbE-0007nj-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQbF-0001SU-Kd; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQam-0001Nb-GN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:26:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22655 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQaj-0007nT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:26:29 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQad-0007nP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:26:24 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KIPofO000486 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:25:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201825.h5KIPofO000486@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <20030620180619.GA5652@earth.tc.umn.edu> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:25:50 -0600 (MDT) > From: Steven F Siirila > ... > > > I can tell! Links in email header lines which used to be clickable in > > > Netscape 4 no longer are in Netscape 7! To visit such a URL (for example, > > > to unsubscribe from a list) one has to view the raw message and cut-and-paste! > > > > Are you certain you've not somehow configured Netscape to do that? > > I just sent a purely plaintext message without even MIME headers consisting > ... > Are you talking about header lines or body lines? I'm talking about headers. I'm talking about body lines, because the topic involves the question of whether HTML is necessary to make URLs clickable. HTML doesn't apply to headers. I realize that the headers for this mailing list include List-Subscribe and List-Unsubscribe lines because I'm a masochistic geek. I bet many subscribers to this list don't, despite its topic. I just compared Netscape 4 with 7, and I see that the normally hidding headers including List-Unsubscribe were clickable in 4 but are not in 7. They're hidden in both. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:31:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24403 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KIVCf09038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQfI-0002Lh-6g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24299; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQfF-000065-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQfF-000062-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQf9-0002Dq-AK; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:31:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQeh-00029Q-6j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:30:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24115 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQee-00005G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:30:32 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQed-00004a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:30:31 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5KIXE719378; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:33:14 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/10) Personal Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1932664240.20030620112955@brandenburg.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620140127.00bc4a78@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620140127.00bc4a78@solidmatrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:55 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, YS> Lets say to fight this spammer trick email hosts will now reject messages YS> after 2 times, then the spammers adjusting and sending 3M messages, now YS> reject value stands at 3 times, spammers send 4M messages, ad infinitum. YS> This would increase costs of sending email since it would have to be stored YS> longed and retried longer. HOWEVER, at a certain point (number of rejects), YS> spamming will become too costly although I think that reject point is very YS> large. as well as the cost to those sending legitimate mail, as well as the cost to the receiving sites to process these rejected postings. so, large-scale use of this facility will do an excellent job of providing a deprivation of service attack. unfortunately, the attack will be experienced by everyone, not just the bad guys. YS> This is basically an economic approach - you are increasing the cost of YS> each sent message by forcing the sender blunt instrument. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:32:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19686 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHb8Q23842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPoy-0006CS-Cs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19645; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPow-00079J-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPov-00079F-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPor-00067D-8D; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPo3-000658-4r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19597 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPo1-00078D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:09 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPnz-000789-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:36:08 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KHa5Kr019614 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:36:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201736.h5KHa5Kr019614@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <20030620165109.GB3578@socialtools.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:36:05 -0600 (MDT) > From: Benjamin Geer > OK, here are counts of non-spam messages from a list for people working on a > non-technical political campaign, for four months that had particularly high > traffic (September, October and December 2002, and January 2003). > > Total messages: 144 > Plain text (including quoted-printable): 94 > Total HTML: 48 > 'Unnecessary' HTML (just P and DIV tags): 23 > 'Useful' HTML (e.g. with bold and italic, and different font sizes): 25 > Entire message in base64: 2 > Messages (among the above) with attachments: 4 > > I included quoted-printable in the plain-text category because it was needed > by several people posting messages in languages other than English. > > The archives are here: > > http://lists.southspace.net/pipermail/esf-uk-info Thanks! So by your count, 25/144 or 17% involved real HTML? That's more than I predicted, but less than it seemed others suggested. Not to be difficult, just to see if I agreed, I looked at October, 2002 Of the 42 total (if I counted right), I found 6 that had real HTML formatting. Three of those were what might be called formal presentation documents intended for bulk distribution (e.g. seminar timetables) instead of person-to-person or person-to-mailing-list email. Was that month unusual or did I count wrong? 3/39 or 8% is above my prediction but significantly below 17%. Do you agree that documents such as the seminar timetables aren't strictly admissible? I certainly agree that HTML is appropriate for those documents, but they're also legitimate bulk mail that should be subject to white-listing. Many of the real HTML messages included plaintext versions. How do you suppose their authors would have responded if it were suggested that HTML was a bad idea? It should be noted that the Mailman archive of that list might have discouraged the use of HTML. The ugliness of HTML in that vintage of Mailman archives is one of the reasons why I've configured Mailman to reject HTML submissions to the DCC mailing lists. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:34:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20227 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KHm5s27609 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPzZ-0007BE-BS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20190; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzW-0007Gs-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzW-0007Gm-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPzW-00074u-2K; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:48:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TPzT-00074a-B5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20184 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzR-0007Gf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:57 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TPzQ-0007GQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:56 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXH52689; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJA38118; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Benjamin Geer'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <003201c33754$14c12a50$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20030620165109.GB3578@socialtools.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:47:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id NAA20227 Benjamin Geer wrote: > 'Unnecessary' HTML (just P and DIV tags): 23 This is not necessarily a valid measure of utility. It is often the case that HTML is displayed using fonts which are different from those used to display "ASCII" messages. Given that those fonts are often variable pitch and given that variable pitch fonts are known to be (for most people) much more readable, one can argue that there is utility in sending HTML formatted messages even if that HTML doesn't include special rendering of text. The utility comes from sending the message in a format which is likely to be easier to read as well as to be more readily understood by the reader. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:47:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21017 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KI24S31717 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQD6-0008FE-F6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20966; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQD3-0007Rz-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQD2-0007Ru-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQD3-00088Q-7M; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQCI-00086W-Nv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20902 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQCG-0007RC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:12 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQCE-0007Qx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:01:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620135621.00bc4a78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <200306201747.h5KHllwA020633@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:00:50 -0400 At 11:47 AM 6/20/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Evan Harris > > > > As with any whitelist, there are potential privacy concerns, but > > > these concerns would be greater here because of the additional data > > > tracked in the database. Of greatest concern would be: > > > > I disagree. One of the nice things about this method is that it keeps > > very little profiling info. It certainly doesn't look at the body or > > even the headers of the messages. The only statistics kept are things that > > could easily be retrieved from the mailer logs anyway. > >Please reconsider. Contemplate the value of knowing that Bill Gates has >recieved a message from Steve Case (or vice versa) even without knowing >the contents. Your database doesn't contain messages, but traffic analysis >can be very valuable. That's why "pen recorders" are used by the police. >It's why the legitimacy of some traffic analysis of email and phone >calls is a continuing issue in federal criminal court cases. There are ways to reduce the problem by storing the sensitive information not in plain text, perhaps using some one way function like many systems do for passwords. Still it is an issue. >[..] > > > Most mail servers > > keep logs for longer than that anyway. > >"Most" is a strong word, particularly on issues like this that are >subject to corporate "document retention" policies. Those policies >should be called "burn after reading policies" because they require >the desctruction of archives and backups lest they be used in future >court cases. Some time ago I was in touch with a CIO-level executive of a major university. Their retention policies call for ALL logs to be destroyed after merely 10 days due to the increased number of court orders. Also, the SEC/NASD rules require all email to be stored for three years at US-based investment firms. These whitelists just add to the equation. >Note also that some few librarians are burning records as soon as books >are returned to avoid their use by snoopers. Being a former librarian I definitely agree with that. I had also recently wrote a library program used for small schools and specifically put in a feature to erase records after the books are returned. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:48:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26661 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KImE113135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:48:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQvm-0003Pb-5n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:48:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26629; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQub-0003M5-3y; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQuM-0003LU-V6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:46:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26490 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQuK-0000TF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:46:44 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQuJ-0000Sx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:46:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KIk7OQ001642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:46:08 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <200306201801.h5KI1mvL022637@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:46:07 -0500 (CDT) > If all of AOL's peers used your system, a lot of AOL's mail would > start spending 10s or 100s of minutes instead of seconds in AOLs queue. Excellent. Then AOL will make damn sure that what it sends is not spam. Seriously, after initial learning, the amount of legitimate mail that results in a temporary block is pretty small. How often do you get mail from someone you've never had contact with versus how much mail do you get from established relationships? Speaking for myself and the users on the test systems, that ratio is pretty small. > transaction are burned by the end of the Rcpt_TO command. Contrary > to common naive calculations, the 6 packets and 3 or 4 round trips of > the DATA command are often the tail of the dog. I did it by packets because that was the easiest, and definitly does impact people with less than ample connections. Show me a way to measure the other qualities on a significant scale, and I'll be happy to attempt to. > I'm not talking about the costs for the recipients running your system > but for the senders. Admittedly, there is some amount of penalty to senders of email. But isn't that the point? The whole problem of spam stems from the fact that sending it is abysmally cheap. And the penalty will be larger for spammers since they generally don't stick around to establish relationships. I think this method of "increasing the cost" of emailing is a lot better than other suggested methods of doing so, an increasing the cost is the only way we will stop spam. As long as it remains profitable, it will continue to be a problem. > > So let them be handled by blacklists. In either case, the fact that they > > are trying to be legit means they are easily blocked since the headers > > should not be forged. ... > > Blacklists do not work for "mainsleaze" because a significant part > and usually most of those spews is not spam because it is wanted by > its targets. Then I guess I don't see the problem. If the mail is wanted, why should I be trying to block it? Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 14:52:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27096 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KIpYq14339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:51:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQz0-0003jC-DW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:51:34 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27003; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQyT-0003ck-OY; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TQxh-0003bJ-4A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:50:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26809 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQxe-0000Yq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:50:10 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TQxd-0000Yn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:50:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KIo4OQ002695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:50:05 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Yakov Shafranovich cc: Dave Crocker , ASRG , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620140127.00bc4a78@solidmatrix.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:50:04 -0500 (CDT) > This is basically an economic approach - you are increasing the cost of > each sent message by forcing the sender to store it longer and use more > network resources sending it. The same goal would be accomplished by adding > email postage but this approach works without changing the existing > infrastructure. What you are basically doing is imposing cost on ALL users > of the system by forcing them to use network resources multiple times. Exactly, except that the system as described only incurs the penalty the first time a relationship is established. And that affects spammers much more than legit senders. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 15:01:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28425 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KJ0o216919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TR7y-0004Oo-MP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:50 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28370; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TR7B-0004IB-6h; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TR6d-0004HA-KH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:59:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28094 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TR6a-0000sr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:59:24 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TR6Y-0000sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:59:23 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KIxF2T008429 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:59:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306201859.h5KIxF2T008429@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:59:15 -0600 (MDT) > From: Evan Harris > ... > > I'm not talking about the costs for the recipients running your system > > but for the senders. > > Admittedly, there is some amount of penalty to senders of email. But isn't > that the point? ... No, the point is to penalize senders of spam while doing minimal harm. > ... > > > So let them be handled by blacklists. In either case, the fact that they > > > are trying to be legit means they are easily blocked since the headers > > > should not be forged. ... > > > > Blacklists do not work for "mainsleaze" because a significant part > > and usually most of those spews is not spam because it is wanted by > > its targets. > > Then I guess I don't see the problem. If the mail is wanted, why should I > be trying to block it? Private blacklists are not practical for any except crazy users to maintain. As proof, consider the 7000 entries in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/spammers.html Those are all justified by spam sent toward mailboxes @rhyolite.com or various spam traps. System wide blacklists don't work. For example, dell.com is in my blacklist for good, sufficient, and continuing reasons, but I'm sure some of their targets want those "newsletter." A system-wide blacklist of dell.com is unworkable except at trivially tiny domains like rhyolite.com Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 15:36:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03489 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KJa4j23203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:36:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TRg4-00062A-8v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:36:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03365; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TRg2-00023K-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:36:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TRg2-00023H-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:36:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TRf2-0005ye-W1; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:35:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TReO-0005wi-4S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:34:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03151 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:34:18 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TReM-0001zv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:34:18 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TReL-0001zp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:34:17 -0400 Received: (cpmta 2990 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 12:34:16 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 12:34:16 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 19:34:16 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:33:14 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:21 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: wishlist@microsoft.com X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:00:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> However, you would cut down you spam load significantly if you rejected > all mail with "Content-type: text/html" SMTP or MIME entity headers > from strangers. > How can you have it both ways? You either receive email from strangers or you don't. The point is BY DEFAULT to reject unsolicited HTML-burdened E-mail, or mail from untrusted/unknown senders that contains attachments. By so doing, you will shrink spam byte volume by probably 90% or more. You'll also eliminate in one fell swoop the GREAT majority of viruses, worms, and trojans. Plain ASCII text will continue to be delivered as before. > Those who want to recieve mail from strangers can simply not block any email, or continue to use filters. There is nothing that would PRECLUDE anybody from continuing to receive anything they like, from anybody (including all the world's spammers and other abusers), if that's the way they want to set their incoming mail account. (In fact, I'd presume that honeypot accounts would want to be set to receive anything and everything...) > Those who don't, should be able to require verifiable identification through some means. Once you HAVE heard from someone, there are a whole variety of ways to establish "identification", perhaps the most recognized being PGP/PKI encryption or signatures. But again, that's not particularly useful for a FIRST contact, and that's really what we're talking about here. It's really sorta like Yahoogroups discussion lists, where their enlightened feature of "moderate posts by new members" has contributed HUGELY to keeping those lists (the well-managed ones, anyhow) spam-free. In that case, newly subscribed folks CANNOT send anything to the whole list until the moderator approves it. Once the moderator is convinced that the subscriber is not a spammer, the specific now-trusted user can be set to "no moderation required" (and that status can be reverted to 'moderated' if the trust proves to have been premature). Meanwhile, hit-and-run spammers who create a new disposable ID, join a bunch of lists and shovel out a boatload of spam and then vanish into the dark of night have been severely damaged, now that only the moderators ever see the great majority of their crap. What we're talking about doing here is much the same thing. We're trying to put obstacles into the paths of spammers, denying them much of their cover, making their lives more difficult in hopes of convincing them to go find themselves some other way to try to make a living. > If one's bread and butter dependes on receiving email from strangers, then they need an open mail box. My proposal would leave virtually ALL mailboxes 'open' (subject, at least, to whatever content filtering [Spam Assassin or whatever] they wished to employ). Let's recognize and agree that maintaining the status quo isn't really an option... spam is a very big problem, and it WILL GET BIGGER until eventually even the most reluctant will agree that SOMETHING serious must be done. Blocking (by DEFAULT) unsolicited HTML-burdened E-mails from unknown/untrusted recipients would probably block 70-80% of today's spam E-mails, and even once *every* spammer reverts to plain ASCII text, the spam BYTE VOLUME (for the same number of spams) would probably still be reduced by something like the same amount. Yes, it IS true that a lot of clueless users end up sending (usually totally unwittingly) HTML-burdened E-mails because their AOL/Hotmail/Exchange/whatever ends up generating that BY DEFAULT. [IMHO, that is every much an inexcusable waste of resources as spam itself is... but in any case, they certainly have the option of sending that to anyone willing to agree to accept it.] > Most (I believe a very high percentage) of email users don't depend on email from strangers for their living. Okay, let's accept that. Still, I want to be able to receive inquiries from people who I've never heard from before... folks maybe who stumbled into my Web site, or who got a referral from another of my clients, or maybe just someone who saw one of my E-mails somewhere and wanted to get in touch. [Over the years, I've hosted dozens and dozens of people from six continents who I've met JUST THIS WAY...] It matters little whether it's "making a living" or just "making friends". The thing that is important here is that plain ASCII text (the UNIVERSAL form that EVERYONE can handle) is _the_ preferred way to E-mail someone, AT LEAST UNTIL YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THEY CAN AND WILL ACCEPT OTHER FORMATS. Sure, once upon a time there were some newbie folks who tended to send their E-mail as attachments in Word .DOC format attachments too, but thankfully most of them figured out pretty quickly that they didn't endear themselves to most of their recipients by doing that. :-) [Now, mind you, there's NOTHING WRONG with using Word .DOC files if you REALLY WANT to send something that way, and if your intended recipient(s) agree.] [snip] > (Could you adjust your line length to less than 78? My ancient MUA doesn't rewrap lines, and I think it shouldn't. I control my own line lengths by piping paragraphs through `fmt` as I edit them with `vi`.) Could, but in my experience the artifacts of doing that tends to be worse rather than better, since one ends up with chewed-up interlaced paragraphs that are even more frustrating. Sorry. [snip] >> One nice thing about what I propose is that it can be implemented at the > recipient ISP ... > Yes, but until ISPs can tell users who complain "run the Netscape or Microsoft auto-update mechanism", they will not and cannot do such filtering by default. I'm not sure I understand your comment. The reason they would want to change THEIR mail software would be so it would NOT generate HTML-burdened E-mail by default. To truncate the undesirable/untrusted stuff earlier on the transmission/delivery path (BEFORE wasting as many resources handling it) it makes sense to filter it as soon as it reaches the destination domain. So while the filtering COULD be done at the end-user's system (indeed, my personal incoming mail filtering system works on stuff after it's arrived here) the benefits are greater if you filter it sooner. [snip] > How much of that [HTML-burdened] mail involves real formatting? If you choose 50 messsages at random, how many use HTML and of those, how many use any real text formating? (e.g. intentional use of or as opposed to noise added by MUAs to all HTML messages they create) > If you'll take bets, put my money on 80% or more using HTML and less than 1% using any real text formating. In the case of Yahoogroups, and this is probably typical, the main HTML formatting difference is that it 'allows' Yahoo to install bulkier, more annoying graphical banner ads in messages instead of just sending (smaller) plain ASCII text ads. I don't think that most Lusers do any message formatting in their messages... hell, many of them haven't even figured out how to work their shift and caps lock keys. ;-) And even those that DO would probably gladly give up that *minor* characteristic if the result was a major reduction in spam. > So turn off HTML until the the user makes some text bold or purple, and then silently and automatically switch to HTML. [Or, pop up one of those dialog boxes alerting them that HTML-burdened mail adds 3-5x to mail bulk and isn't welcomed by all recipients, and allowing them the option of proceeding or going back to plain ASCII text... with maybe an option box they can check which says "don't warn me about this in the future."] > As I keep saying there are those of us whose livelihoods involve email and who won't tolerate 0.2% false positives and there are the 100,000,000's of the rest of the Internet for whom not receiving spam is more important than not hearing from a long lost friend. And let's not forget that the "long lost friend" probably won't object in the slightest to sending a plain ASCII E-mail, if that's what it takes to reach you. I don't know many friends who would begrudge anything that takes a substantial bite out of spam and viruses!! > Without HTML tricks to hide various things, all of their stuff is in the open and plainly visible to your Sally End Users. Even your Sally probably discards a Nigerian 419 spam after reading the first 5 words and she may delete unread mail with obvious "hash busters" in subjects. Exactly. FWIW, I end up opening and reading those mails mostly so I can add the bad guys' URLs and domain names to my PC's HOSTS file, which serves as one of the inputs to my incoming mail filtering system. :-) I'll therefore never be bothered by reading spam hawking THOSE sites ever again. :-))) [DCC] > That idea is that as a message arrives or is about to be presented to you, your MTA or MUA should ask a clearinghouse if substantially identical messages have been seen elsewhere. If the answer is "yes, 12345 of them," then your MTA or MUA can know it is a "bulk" message check your list of approved senders or whitelist. One of the perhaps useful ideas from the spf discussion is that rather than itself being a filtering determinator, maybe the spf analysis (i.e. 'is this sender expected to be coming from this IP address block?') would be one, weighted input that could be included in the SpamAssassin criteria list. By the same token, knowing that a lot of folks received the same message (or substantively the same message) from your inbox that is being examined would be another useful weightable input into the SpamAssassin (or similar) decision process. [snip] > IMHO, blocking an email message because it's base64 encoded is misguided. Here's a case in point: There are gateways out there that will switch encodings on messages. If a message is sent through a gateway that understands 8-bit messaging, and it is then passed through to another system which only allows 7-bit, it's got to be downgraded. Downgrading to base64 is perfectly reasonable for such a gateway. While I understand your point, I think I have seen EXACTLY ONE such message that I can recall (and THAT one was spam, where the encoding was used just to obfuscate the mail content), and I suspect that the number of remaining 7-bit-only MTAs is exceedingly small. But again, in any case, if a given user tends to receive mail (legitimately) in base64 format (perhaps from a specific subgroup of correspondents) it would be very easy to open that window for those folks (and even, presumably, to disable the encoded-text filter altogether for that recipient). Again, it's about the CHOICE for the user, and so they could respond in whatever way and degree makes the mose sense TO THEM in exchange for a given degree of control against incoming spam, viruses, worms, and trojans. [snip] [HTML-burdened E-mail] > This issue is well documented in Indeed, I've bookmarked that for future use. [the article makes a good argument against HTML-burdened E-mail, and describes how to send plain ASCII text for various mail client software] [snip] [] > Interesting read. However, how can we mandate filtering of HTML mail if many MUAs use it by default? I don't think we can "mandate" on a global basis much of anything. (Part of why I think approaches like spf are probably doomed). What we *can* do however is to make antispam tools like my proposed "permission whitelists" available, and encourage people to use them as widely as possible. Indeed, such an approach is arguably at its MOST effective when it is NOT universally used, and where nearly all (offending!) spam will be blocked by it. :-)))) [Although, as I've pointed out, even if ALL spam reverts to plain ASCII text as a result of (someday) near-universal HTML-burdened-mail blocking by default from unknown/unagreed senders... you still have the volume of that spam reduced by at least 70%, even for the SAME number of spam messages... and probably a greater reduction due to the resulting plain ASCII text spams having a harder time trying to trick users into responding, making the whole enterprise less appealing to spammers...] Obviously, the MUAs and ISPs which generate wasteful HTML-burdened E-mail by default are a BIG contributor to the waste and abuse problem... probably nearly as bad as spammers themselves are. One of the unabashed goals ought to be to get such mail sent in plain ASCII text instead (I liked the idea of sending it in plain ASCII text **unless** the sender *actually used* features requiring formatting... and perhaps answered a dialog box confirming that such formatting was important to them, and agreed by their recipient(s).) [snip] > Basically we are in an educational period where we have to undo the damage done by some bad decisions by Netscape and MS. The consequences are now apparent re HTML. Even MS realizes the error of its ways (well, some of them anyway) and is now turning off some default security threats in its new builds. It would be interesting to see a suit filed against AOL and/or Microsoft by some big ISP (say, swbell.net or earthlink or somebody?) to attempt to recoup the heavy costs incurred (bandwidth, storage, etc) due to the wasteful default sending of HTML-burdened E-mail where it proves to not be necessary. Perhaps that's just a dream, but I'd love to see them held accountable someday for the huge associated costs that ROTTEN decision carried. [snip] > The vast majority of end-user email is HTML. They use bold and italics in all their other applications. They embed cutesy images in all their other applications. Why shouldn't they in email? Cost differential? They really don't care. And they shouldn't HAVE to care, as long as they have permission from their intended recipients to receive such stuff. But SOMEONE pays for all this bandwidth, and a lot of it is wasted by just such irresponsibility. If we agree that spam is wasteful, then we ought to agree that unnecessary/unwanted/[unwitting!] use of HTML-burdened E-mail is also wasteful (and HTML-burdened spams just COMPOUND the problem to a higher degree!) Anything we can do to encourage stopping that waste is probably a good effort. > And then of course there is commercial, requested email, which is virtually 100% HTML. And such commercial, requested, HTML-burdened E-mail... which the intended recipient has AGREED to accept... will not be affected at all by the permissions list, since it will (obviously) be approved by the recipient in advance. Again, the whole point of this is PUTTING THE RECIPIENT IN CONTROL of the use of their LIMITED RESOURCES (bandwidth, Inbox space, storage/archiving resources, etc). THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE! The phone company has the right to publish any kind of phone books they want (as long as it's at THEIR expense), but they don't have the right to bring by a truck and dump 30,000 of them onto MY driveway! [snip] >> And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. > Sure. I'll just tell my father that when he wants to emphasize something he shouldn't hit Apple-B, If he wants to emphasize something, it's just as easy to *emphasize* it or _underline_ it or CAPITALIZE it. This has been standard practice in e-mail messaging for something like twenty years, and you don't have to triple or quadruple the size of the overall E-mail to do that. > he should pay his ISP for a web host and learn how to publish on it. 1) I don't think that most end users really do need anything that elaborate. 2) Most end users ALREADY have (at least some, but usually more than adequate) free personal web space already made available to them by their ISPs. 3) Suitable software could make that publishing-and-linking 'transparent' (or nearly so). 4) If they REALLY want formatting in their text, then there are other ways FAR better for doing that than HTML (.DOC files, .PDF files, LaTeX files, etc). But IN ANY CASE sending those is NOT appropriate or polite on a "first contact", unsolicited basis. What I was referring to was more for those commercial things (newsletters for example) where the senders REALLY REALLY FEEL that they "need" HTML to get their message across... and where their recipients agree. You STILL don't need to put it into every E-mail you send, you can just send the URL and put the HTML up on a Web server somewhere. HTML was created for Web pages, that's REALLY where it belongs... not in E-mail. NOT EVERYBODY reads their E-mail using a Web browser. Ask people with text pagers (for example) how much they appreciate receiving E-mails where the only thing they see before the message truncates is a bunch of stupid HTML tags... > Or were you instead proposing that everyone in the world upgrade their email client to something that uses "pull" instead of "push"? Please can we be serious? I'm being PLENTY serious... you are the one talking about silly stuff. [snip] > ...in the business world...they use Outlook, which gives you a little toolbar that looks exactly like your Microsoft Word formatting toolbar, with font size, bold/italic/underline, colour, etc. Fine. Doesn't change the situation much. Fact remains that the great majority of E-mails (even the stuff sent with HTML-burdened format) does not include any use of font sizes, bold/italic/underline, colors, etc. And if people realized that doing so inconvenienced many recipients and increased the cost of their E-mail (and specifically, if it put a serious dent in spam!) they'd find other ways to get their message across. > If 70% of people currently use HTML, as Kee Hinckley's numbers suggest, then the false positive rate will be 70% under the proposed scheme. You're ignoring the facts that: 1) it could be that existing correspondents will be automatically, semi-automatically, (or manually!) set to continue authorizing them to send mail in the same format they're used to sending it; 2) hopefully, once they become sensitized to the wastefulness, they'll be glad to send plain ASCII text instead; 3) if it means combatting spam, they'll be even more happy to adjust their settings; 4) hopefully ISPs and mail client authors will also become more responsible and change their defaults to something less costly and less spam-friendly. > Think of what would happen in those 70% of cases. After the initial installation, that's only for the "70%" of NEW e-mails arriving in unwanted formats from unknown/untrusted senders. (And, presumably, 90-95% of all spam!) > Instead of one message, there would be at least three (the original HTML mail, the bounce message, and the plain-text version), The bounce message will probably be VERY small (no need for IT to be HTML-burdened! :-) ) and the plain-text version likewise. Hopefully in very short order, people will figure it all out. > and at most five (the original HTML mail, the bounce message, the request for permission, the acknowledgement of permission, and then the original HTML mail again). In the GREAT majority of cases, there won't be any need for permission. > For a proposal that's meant to decrease the volume of mail and avoid creating disruption, that's not very satisfactory. Either senders switch to sending plain ASCII text, or they don't. If they DO, then the mail volume (bulk/bytes) goes down by about 70-80% starting with the VERY FIRST plain ASCII text E-mail they send. It doesn't take very many of those before a couple of explanatory/permission messages repay themselves. If they DON'T, then at least they'll become aware that many users resent the waste of their limited Inbox space (and users will hopefully learn the downside, which they generally don't understand today). And they'll learn to not PRESUME they can send "just any" formaat that they wish without having the RECIPIENT okay that. In either case, the clear message is that the RECIPIENT HAS THE CONTROL over what they are willing to accept... the sender cannot just send 'whatever' and expect to have it delivered regardless. > Mail from strangers isn't just from long-lost friends. It's ubiquitous in the corporate world. Absolutely. And many corporations may choose to accept mail in any and all formats, and not to implement any kind of filtering at all. That's THEIR CHOICE. Given what viruses/worms/trojans (AND spams!) cost most companies, however, I sorta wonder how many of them will end up making that choice. :-) > The employees of a typical company communicate with employees of many other companies: clients, suppliers, etc. Employees come and go, and different projects involve different combinations of companies and different people, so the set of people that a given individual may receive legitimate mail from is constantly changing. Consider a sales representative, who may be contacted by a constantly-changing set of hundreds of people who work at companies that she is negotiating sales with, or that may be interested in her company's products. As a sale progresses, more companies (accountants, lawyers, etc.) are brought in. Similarly for mergers and acquisitions. That's a lot of people who would be annoyed by bounces. Right. But I suspect that the great majority of those senders will pretty quickly realize that they won't be inconvenienced if they send plain ASCII, and make the switch. It's a (minor) learning process, but then again SO ARE ANY of these proposed anti-spam solutions. Maintaining the status quo is NOT a practical and viable option. [snip] > On receiving your proposed bounce message, the irate recipient gets on the phone to his IT department, and demands to know why he has to go off and read some technical web site just to send an email. This is a recipe for chaos. The bounce message ought to be polite and informative, and explain why we all need to work together to stop spammers and viruses. It's true that some users will call their IT departments instead of visiting the Web site for more information, but as I mentioned before, it's a learning process. As such "permissions lists" become more common around the Net, legitimate senders will learn to change their outgoing mail options and everything should quite rapidly settle down. > And in case you're thinking of suggesting that the IT department configure everyone's MUA to send plain text by default, keep in mind that this would place a huge burden on IT departments, Oh, that's SUCH nonsense. It's probably a SINGLE registry setting, and many large-corporate IT departments probably already have "automated rollout" provisions to adjust stuff like that. Even if they don't, it would be a VERY easy matter to have a 'stock' E-mail that explains to the user how to adjust their settings in Outlook accordingly. "Huge burden" is ridiculous, especially if there was in fact a great reduction in spamming, viruses, worms and trojans... which DO cause a "huge burden" on corporate IT departments. > which are already straining to keep everyone's virus checkers up to date. Virus checkers, in particular, would become *almost* superfluous if attachments were only received from known/trusted senders WITH A RECOGNIZED NEED TO SEND ATTACHMENTS! > Moreover, it wouldn't help in the case where the irate manager is trying to send a PowerPoint document. There's NO point in sending a PowerPoint document to someone who doesn't have the requisite software to view a PowerPoint document. Again, there's NO point in sending such stuff to anybody on a FIRST CONTACT. > An anti-spam system should be as non-intrusive as possible; Well, other than that we sorta wanna rock the spammers' world. :-) > ...I think we can do better than this. Perhaps, although this is the most practical, easily implementable, functional, compatible, lowest cost proposal I've seen so far. And about the ONLY one which would probably cut overall E-mail cost and volume by half or more, Net-wide. [snip] > More important, the problem for your idea is not selling it here but in Redmond. Until Microsoft stops encoding mail in HTML by default, perhaps by only turning on HTML when the user does some formating, ISPs cannot filter HTML by default. I really wish they could and would, but I'm not quite crazy enough to confuse my wishes with reality. If Microsoft can sue a bunch of spammers for generating wasteful/fraudulent/bogus traffic and increasing Hotmail's costs, then a similar argument could be made for a big ISP (say Earthlink or someone) that Microsoft's defaulting to sending HTML-burdened mail is similarly costly to the ISP. While we haven't seen such a suit yet, there are a whole lot of lawsuits based on much slimmer and more farfetched arguments. It would certainly put the concern onto Microsoft's radar screen, anyhow. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:07:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05940 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KK76r28793 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSA6-0007UK-1l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05921; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSA4-0002hg-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSA3-0002hd-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSA1-0007Qb-9r; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TS9L-0007Op-8Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:06:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05903 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:06:17 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TS9J-0002hN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:06:18 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TS9J-0002hK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:06:17 -0400 Received: (cpmta 11600 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 13:06:15 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 13:06:15 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 20:06:15 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:05:11 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:32:17 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] "Useful features" To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:32:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. First >lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what goes into it. No, but we do have a well-established and longstanding convention that plain ASCII text is the _most_ universal form of E-mail that EVERYBODY can read on virtually ANY kind of device. It makes sense, until a sender knows that other types are also acceptable, to send in most widely readable and acceptable format. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:10:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06117 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKA2s30587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSCw-0007xG-Nq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06083; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSCv-0002j8-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSCu-0002j5-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSCv-0007uG-3e; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSCN-0007pM-9L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:09:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06018 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:09:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSCL-0002iY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:09:25 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSCK-0002iT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:09:24 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620160658.00b9a940@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Cc: wishlist@microsoft.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:08:57 -0400 At 03:00 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> However, you would cut down you spam load significantly if you rejected > > all mail with "Content-type: text/html" SMTP or MIME entity headers > > from strangers. > > > How can you have it both ways? You either receive email from strangers >or you don't. > >The point is BY DEFAULT to reject unsolicited HTML-burdened E-mail, or >mail from untrusted/unknown senders that contains attachments. By so >doing, you will shrink spam byte volume by probably 90% or more. You'll >also eliminate in one fell swoop the GREAT majority of viruses, worms, and >trojans. > >Plain ASCII text will continue to be delivered as before. >[..] My main problem with this and similar proposals is that they assume that a consent system is in place that lets users authorize certain people to send them email. The problem is that no such system exists and the goal of this group is to make such system (see charter). Instead of bickering over a specific filtering case, perhaps we should consider the larger question of consent systems and how users can express such consent. The CRI protocol is an example of such consent system where a standards-based system is proposed to allows users and receivers verify each other's identify. Another example is this mailing list - you must be subsribed to the list in order to post - meaning that consent of the list administrator is required. More examples and an overall system is needed for consent-based communications. There is also a need to coordinate various spam approaches. For example filtering HTML burdened email when combined with C/R or trusted sender (e.g. Habeas), needs to behave differently than plain HTML filtering. The last point is that HTML filtering is not a "silver bullet", it is merely a filtering technique. Someone on the list should be gathering these techniques together into one document. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:16:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06338 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKG3S31647 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSIl-0008EM-9R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06320; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSIj-0002lk-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSIj-0002lh-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSIj-0008B4-0C; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSHr-0008AS-Qi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06288 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSHq-0002lF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:15:06 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSHl-0002l7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:15:02 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5KKErLb023645 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:14:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306202014.h5KKErLb023645@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:14:53 -0600 (MDT) > From: gep2@terabites.com > ... > > (Could you adjust your line length to less than 78? My ancient MUA > doesn't rewrap lines, and I think it shouldn't. I control my own line > lengths by piping paragraphs through `fmt` as I edit them with `vi`.) > > Could, but in my experience the artifacts of doing that tends to > be worse rather than better, since one ends up with chewed-up > interlaced paragraphs that are even more frustrating. Sorry. What's that about interlaced paragraphs on text with proper lengths? Typing like an old fashioned typiest and hitting "Return" before the right margin yields text that is far more intelligible. It seems you've switched to no hard line breaks except at the ends of paragraphs. That's better, or less bad, than your previous 79-83 character lines. I can send a 300 character paragraph through `fmt`, quickly add '> ' to the beginnings, and produce something that's legible in the archives. 79-83 character lines are a royal pain to quote. > ... > > Yes, but until ISPs can tell users who complain "run the Netscape or > Microsoft auto-update mechanism", they will not and cannot do such > filtering by default. > > I'm not sure I understand your comment. The reason they would > want to change THEIR mail software would be so it would NOT generate > HTML-burdened E-mail by default. To truncate the undesirable/untrusted > stuff earlier on the transmission/delivery path (BEFORE wasting as > ... Fine, but no non-trivial ISP that wants to keep its users, and for that matter, no "IT" department that wants to keep its empire could start filtering incoming HTML mail by default this month or even this year. Local users would revolt because a large fraction of their incoming mail would be bouncing. Until mail that is legitimate except for gratuitous HTML encryption is largely gone, no large outfit can filter HTML by default. The most that any large outfit can offer is to filter HTML mail for users who ask for such filtering. There are many ways to do that today. I think one is to use a Milter version of SpamAssassin, although I'm not sure if all of those support per-user control files. It's certainly easy to do during delivery with SpamAssassin, Procmail, and many other mechanisms. > ... > > So turn off HTML until the the user makes some text bold or purple, > and then silently and automatically switch to HTML. > > [Or, pop up one of those dialog boxes alerting them that > HTML-burdened mail adds 3-5x to mail bulk and isn't welcomed by > all recipients, and allowing them the option of proceeding or going > back to plain ASCII text... with maybe an option box they can check > which says "don't warn me about this in the future."] Fine. > ... > > IMHO, blocking an email message because it's base64 encoded is > misguided. Here's a case in point: There are gateways out there that > will switch encodings on messages. ... > While I understand your point, I think I have seen EXACTLY ONE > such message that I can recall (and THAT one was spam, where the > encoding was used just to obfuscate the mail content), and I suspect > that the number of remaining 7-bit-only MTAs is exceedingly small. I've seen plenty of headers on mail saying that base64 encoding has beem removed. I've also seen plenty of spews with some samples encoded and some not. But regardless, what's your point about Base64? It does nothing to help spammers or hurt filters. The first is why relatively little spam is current base64 encoded. Base64 encoding wastes 30% of bandwidth and disk space, but that's not a reasonable concern given the small fraction of total traffic that is all email. HTML as it is commonly processed by receiving MUAs has many evils, but base64 is merely a trivial waste of bandwidth. > ... > > Or were you instead proposing that everyone in the world upgrade > their email client to something that uses "pull" instead of "push"? > Please can we be serious? > > I'm being PLENTY serious... you are the one talking about silly stuff. As far as I've understood them, some contributors to this mailing list have seriously proposed replacing all SMTP with a pull protocol. In limited situations, such as newsletters and some (but not all) equivalents to netnews, that position makes sense. Otherwise, not. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:21:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06496 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKLA832676 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSNi-0008Ux-Ev for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06486; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSNg-0002ny-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSNg-0002nv-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSNZ-0008Sz-Qd; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSNO-0008Sj-Uh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:20:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06479 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSNN-0002nm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:20:49 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSNK-0002ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:20:48 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620160941.00bdb2f0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org, "Eric D. Williams" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] "Useful features" In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:20:18 -0400 At 03:32 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. First > >lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what goes into it. > >No, but we do have a well-established and longstanding convention that plain >ASCII text is the _most_ universal form of E-mail that EVERYBODY can read on >virtually ANY kind of device. It makes sense, until a sender knows that >other >types are also acceptable, to send in most widely readable and acceptable >format. A while ago (June 3rd) Eric Williams published a draft list of requirements for anti-spam solutions, below are some of those requirements. This proposal does not fit under "2.3. Ease of Use", "2.7 Persistently Effective", and "2.8 Doesn't Interfere With The Delivery Of Legitimate Mail". These are the issues that I would like to see addressed. As for a "longstanding convention", due to the many MUAs sending HTML email, that convention has been changed and now HTML email is acceptable. ---snip--- 2.3 Ease of Use The approach SHALL consider the ease of use for message system managers, senders and recipients in all messaging situations. 2.3.1 Rationale: For successful adoption by the user community proposals must provide support for typical and atypical messaging situations involving two or more parties. Many different correspondent scenarios exist in the MTS a proposal which limits the ease of messaging in existing scenarios will limit adoption. 2.7 Persistently Effective The proposal SHOULD provide more than a step in an environment of escalating countermeasures. 2.7.1 Rational: Authors should consider the status quo concerning the development and deployment of stop-gap measures a failure. Solutions or research into the problem should present a threat analysis with the threat(s) being addressed, protection goals, possible countermeasures and defenses against those countermeasures over the longest period possible or that provably work forever. 2.8 Doesn't Interfere With The Delivery Of Legitimate Mail The proposal MUST consider, address and keep at a minimum impacts on [legitimate] messaging traffic within the MTS. 2.8.1 Rationale: Proposals must consider the reasons for successful widespread deployment of the current MTS: low latency, high deliverability, scalability, functionality for multiple content types, etc. Authors should develop proposals that minimize impact in these critical areas for [legitimate] MTS uses. Thus an optimal proposal will impact only [spam] and not [legitimate] messaging traffic. ---snip--- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:26:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06648 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKQ3V01039 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSSR-0000Gg-JW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06625; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSSP-0002q2-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSSP-0002pz-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSSP-0000DO-Jb; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSRb-0000BZ-RL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:25:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06590 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSRa-0002pY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:25:10 -0400 Received: from web14607.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.87]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSRZ-0002pV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:25:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20030620202507.75895.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [32.103.176.190] by web14607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:25:07 PDT From: WSpringfield To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] anti-spam message board Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Mr Paul Judge, Thank you for including me in your group. I found you from an article on Greylisting by Evan Harris and wanted to invite participants in your group to make contributions to a new anti-spam message board which can be found at; http://b5.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=spamfree The board is brand new and aimed at those without the technical knowledge exhibited by your participants but equally interested in solutions for the problem of spam. I apologize for the banners and the occasional pop up but this is a non profit endeavor and seems to be reasonable as to its impact on the utility of the site for those who visit and use it. We will try to maintain decorum but make no guarantees that a raucous message will slip through from time to time. Contributions made by your participants on this site would be helpful to many who have a sincere interest in the subject of span, and I urge you to 'put in your two cents worth' anytime. There is no sign in and email addresses are not required. The board may be used to sound off or to make serious dialog with others on this subject. Thanks again. WSpringfield __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:49:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07833 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKn8u04812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSom-0001FX-Sv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07824; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSol-00036p-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSok-00036m-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSof-0001DR-81; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSo6-0001D8-QQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:48:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07793 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSo5-00036H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:48:25 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSo4-00036E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:48:24 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2469061; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:48:25 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: gep2@terabites.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:47:30 -0400 Could we please cancel this thread (and not cc it to wishlist@microsoft.com). People use formatted email. Whether they need, or want to is besides the point. They do. No amount of talking is going to set back the clock to the days of the ascii internet. Let's talk about things that can actually be changed, not fantasies where clueless "lusers" don't understand the damage they are doing by sending graphical smiley faces to their Aunt Lucy, but would happily change their behavior and start typing in compressed hacker speak if it were just nicely explained to them. While we're at it--let's explain to them why they shouldn't litter either--that should be even easier. And seriously. Even if you believe that blocking HTML is feasible. It isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference in the amount of spam that gets sent. Spammers do their best to make their email look like real email to the end user. If the end user gets email as plain text, then spammers will send plain text. This isn't rocket science--it's basic economics. At that point, Gordon falls back on the argument that at least we will have saved in the number of *bytes* sent. Which is true. But saving bytes is not the charter of this group. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:53:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08020 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKr2A06022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:53:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSsY-0001Z3-Q9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:53:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08005; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSsW-00038v-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:53:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSsW-00038s-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:53:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSsW-0001Vr-I8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSs5-0001SV-MN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:52:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07972 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSs3-00038B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:52:31 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSs2-000388-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:52:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620165130.00b339b8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:52:04 -0400 At 04:47 PM 6/20/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >Could we please cancel this thread (and not cc it to wishlist@microsoft.com). > >People use formatted email. Whether they need, or want to is besides the >point. They do. No amount of talking is going to set back the clock to >the days of the ascii internet. Let's talk about things that can actually >be changed, not fantasies where clueless "lusers" don't understand the >damage they are doing by sending graphical smiley faces to their Aunt >Lucy, but would happily change their behavior and start typing in >compressed hacker speak if it were just nicely explained to them. While >we're at it--let's explain to them why they shouldn't litter either--that >should be even easier. > >And seriously. Even if you believe that blocking HTML is feasible. It >isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference in the amount of spam >that gets sent. Spammers do their best to make their email look like real >email to the end user. If the end user gets email as plain text, then >spammers will send plain text. This isn't rocket science--it's basic >economics. > >At that point, Gordon falls back on the argument that at least we will >have saved in the number of *bytes* sent. Which is true. But saving >bytes is not the charter of this group. >-- Thank you Kee, I second that thought. Can we move on to bigger and better things? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:55:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08121 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKt4Y06437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSuW-0001fk-LN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08096; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSuU-00039t-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSuU-00039q-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSuU-0001ds-DK; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSto-0001dD-AJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:54:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08058 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:54:17 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TStm-00039a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:54:18 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TStl-00039X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:54:17 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4976 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 13:54:16 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 13:54:16 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 20:54:16 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:52:23 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:19:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Cutting down spam load To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112322.00b9fac8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:19:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>AND, don't forget, another big benefit is blocking NOT ONLY JUST spam, but >>also >>viruses/worms/trojans. In many cases, those are sent from 'legitimate' >>senders >>and without hijacking open relays... so things like spf wouldn't help >>(even IF >>you could realistically speaking block 'non-verifiable' senders, which is way >>less than clear) but my permissions-list approach would block probably >>80-90% or >>more of such malicious stuff, too. By blocking (by default) ALL attachments >>coming from people you don't normally expect to get attachments from, you're >>blocking malicious code, too. Sure, you'll open up the "attachments allowed" >>window for people you trust and authorize to send those, but that's going to >>typically be a small percentage of the people you'd normally maybe receive >>(ordinary) E-mails from. >We do research into fighting spam, not viruses and worms. How does blocking >attachements going to stop spammers? Although 1) some spammers have been known to install spambots and zombies in unwitting users' systems, and those are installed via attachments; and 2) text-as-image attachments are occasionally used by spammers to circumvent content/keyword scanners, the real point is that by this one permission-based whitelist approach, we can use one, cohesive, straightforward, and incrementally deployable approach to take a big bite out of BOTH spam AND viruses/trojans... arguably the two biggest and most pressing problems we have on the Internet today. Meanwhile, in so doing, we'll also help prevent the irresponsible and wasteful growth of (unnecessary) HTML-burdened E-mail, which all by itself could be expected to perhaps make as much as a 30-50% or more reduction in the total E-mail load, net-wide. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 16:56:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08257 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KKu2d07515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSvS-0001x8-SA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:56:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08207; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSvQ-0003B5-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:56:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSvQ-0003B2-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:56:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSvR-0001qs-6Y; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSvN-0001qY-UK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08194 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSvM-0003Am-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:56 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSvK-0003Ai-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620165451.00b33af8@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Mailing list speed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:55:27 -0400 The posting speed on the list has remarkably improved to minutes instead of hours. Thank you for fixing the problem. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:01:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08658 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KL0ct08823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSzu-0002Hu-Fn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08587; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSzp-0003Go-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSzp-0003En-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSzK-00025g-7j; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TSz2-00024p-1B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:59:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08423 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSz0-0003Dm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:59:42 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TSyy-0003Dj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:59:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620165724.00bdadc8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Cutting down spam load In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112322.00b9fac8@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:59:19 -0400 At 04:19 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>AND, don't forget, another big benefit is blocking NOT ONLY JUST spam, but > >>also > >>viruses/worms/trojans. In many cases, those are sent from 'legitimate' > >>senders > >>and without hijacking open relays... so things like spf wouldn't help > >>(even IF > >>you could realistically speaking block 'non-verifiable' senders, which > is way > >>less than clear) but my permissions-list approach would block probably > >>80-90% or > >>more of such malicious stuff, too. By blocking (by default) ALL > attachments > >>coming from people you don't normally expect to get attachments from, > you're > >>blocking malicious code, too. Sure, you'll open up the "attachments > allowed" > >>window for people you trust and authorize to send those, but that's > going to > >>typically be a small percentage of the people you'd normally maybe receive > >>(ordinary) E-mails from. > > >We do research into fighting spam, not viruses and worms. How does blocking > >attachements going to stop spammers? > >Although > > 1) some spammers have been known to install spambots and zombies in > unwitting >users' systems, and those are installed via attachments; That is true and Barry Shein has pointed this out before. However, your approach still does not solve the issue of dealing with ASCII spam. >and > > 2) text-as-image attachments are occasionally used by spammers to > circumvent >content/keyword scanners, > >the real point is that by this one permission-based whitelist approach, we >can >use one, cohesive, straightforward, and incrementally deployable approach to >take a big bite out of BOTH spam AND viruses/trojans... arguably the two >biggest >and most pressing problems we have on the Internet today. TODAY, what about tomorow? How long will it take spammers to adapt? Mere days. >Meanwhile, in so doing, we'll also help prevent the irresponsible and >wasteful >growth of (unnecessary) HTML-burdened E-mail, which all by itself could be >expected to perhaps make as much as a 30-50% or more reduction in the total >E-mail load, net-wide. We are not in the traffic reducing business. If we would be why not advocate the use of gzip compression on all HTTP transactions? That would save tremendous amount of time as well? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:09:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08981 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KL98q11223 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TT88-0002uw-Hg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08971; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TT86-0003Lc-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TT85-0003LZ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TT80-0002rv-TI; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:09:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TT7K-0002rD-S9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:08:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08943 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:08:15 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TT7I-0003LN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:08:17 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TT7I-0003LK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:08:16 -0400 Received: (cpmta 16267 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 14:08:15 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 14:08:15 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 21:08:15 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:07:50 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:34:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail To: gep2@terabites.com, gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:34:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>No. I think that INITIALLY, spam is going to stay HTML-burdened (and a >result, >nearly all of it would be trashed if sent to permission-list-protected >recipients). After some time, spammers will realize that HTML-burdening >their >spam is the 'kiss of death' and they'll stop doing that. >>> I do not believe that it will take spammers too long to switch to plain > ASCII. >>Agreed. And once they do that: > I believe someone on the list has stated that spammers are monitoring the working group and in the last 60 days there have been significant changes in spam based on our discussions here. When I mean that they will switch to plain ASCII, I was not talking about on the order of years, rather DAYS or WEEKS. By the time you can implement base64 blocking, spammers will already be using plain ASCII. All you will do is irritate lots of users. If spam actually represents (as some ISPs have claimed) as much as 80% of their incoming E-mail, and if by switching to plain ASCII text you cut that volume by something like 70%, then you've cut the ISPs' E-mail bandwidth and storage costs by a HUGE amunt. I think you'll also HUGELY reduce the opportunity for spammer misrepresentation and abuse, thus dissuading at least some spammers. All in all, I think that the resulting decrease in spamming will be HANDSOME payback for the [very!!!] minor adjustments it might require in user habits. >> 1) Their spam will be less effective; > How? They won't be able to make use of links which purport to point somewhere and actually point somewhere else; They won't be able to preclude content keyword filters by sending text as GIF or JPG images; They won't be able to use scripting, ActiveX, web services or other malicious coding in their spams; They won't be able to use many of the other "hiding/obfuscation" tricks (nearly all of them HTML-based) that spams so commonly today employ. And that's just a few... but I've already discussed this stuff here before, I shouldn't have to go over it time and time again. >> 2) their spam will be more easily dealt with by content filters; > How? Spammers send HTML encoded mail on the assumption that the MUAs are able to parse it. What is easier to do: make content filters be able to parse everything MUAs can, or block HTML encoded mail over the Internet completely. I'm not proposing that HTML-burdened E-mail be blocked "completely". I'm suggesting that it should BY DEFAULT be blocked from UNAPPROVED/UNTRUSTED senders, on a recipient-by-recipient basis. Recipients could enable either/or HTML, and/or attachments, and/or encoded text on a sender-by-sender basis. This returns control to the receiving user (where it belongs!) and ends up taking the great majority of most unwanted spam and routing it either back to the sender (bounceback) or straight into the bit bucket. > I believe the first one is easier since there are few companies that make filters many of which already able to parse and process base64, HTML, etc. It's not all that difficult to handle HTML, but in the end analysis it's not as if you NEED to do that. Most all E-mail that arrives UNEXPECTEDLY from UNKNOWN/UNTRUSTED senders (AND that is spam!) is HTML-burdened. There is little or no need to send INITIAL CONTACT messages in less-universal HTML-burdened mode. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:18:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09292 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLI7K12423 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTGp-0003EI-LS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09226; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTGn-0003Q3-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTGn-0003Q0-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTGk-0003AY-Np; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:18:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTG9-00039R-Eq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:17:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09204 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTG7-0003PI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:17:23 -0400 Received: from rabelais.socialtools.net ([81.2.94.243]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTG6-0003Ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:17:22 -0400 Received: by rabelais.socialtools.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5E6B3232D8; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:16:51 +0100 (BST) From: Benjamin Geer To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Message-ID: <20030620211651.GD3811@socialtools.net> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Geer , asrg@ietf.org References: <200306201801.h5KI1mvL022637@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:16:51 +0100 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 01:46:07PM -0500, Evan Harris wrote: > How often do you get mail > from someone you've never had contact with versus how much mail do you get > from established relationships? > > Speaking for myself and the users on the test systems, that ratio is pretty > small. It would be worth testing this assumption in a variety of large and small corporate environments, rather than relying on your own experience and that of people you know. Ben _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:33:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09657 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLX6T15196 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTVK-0003x1-SQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09647; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTVI-0003W7-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTVI-0003W4-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTVF-0003v9-C4; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTUu-0003uu-So for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:32:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09640 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:32:37 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTUs-0003Vt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:32:38 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTUs-0003Vq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:32:38 -0400 Received: (cpmta 5646 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 14:32:37 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 14:32:37 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 21:32:37 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:37 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:57:44 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, "'asrg@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620113556.00bbde78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:57:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>The main reason so many users end up sending HTML-burdened E-mail is because >>they don't know any better, and because it is the default. >>Most HTML-burdened E-mail generated by the VAST majority of users never >>use any >>of the formatting (or other such) features at all. For all of those >>messages, >>the HTML-burdening only just makes the messages bigger without conveoying ANY >>more information. >#1: Majority of users and MUAs send HTML email by default That's what I just said. >#2: Changing those settings can take months and years It will take less if they're motivated to change the settings. Actually changing settings in outlook (for example) takes less than a minute and only need be done once. >#3: Spammers switching to plain ASCII will take days. Would be nice.... would result in a HUGE reduction in spam volume and cost, in just DAYS (your claim!). I don't see that as a negative. :-) >#4: It is easier and faster to have content filters do everything that MUAs >can, than forcing users to stop using HTML email. They don't have to stop using it, if they're communicating with people they have a current agreement with. They could be 'grandfathered', perhaps. That's a decision up to whoever implements the specific filter employed by a given ISP. >Base64 encoding, HTML >encoding, url encoded URLS, etc. can all be put into content filters. Of course they can. The important thing is to decide how those are to be weighted, who gets around the restrictions, and how early in the E-mail distribution process the reduction in volume (and cost) takes place. >#5: There is no consent architecture in place for users to make such choices. Nor does there NEED to be, on any global basis. Any ISP can choose to implement that any way they wish (and in fact, that's a PLUS, since the lack of a single approach to that problem makes it harder for abusers to find a loophole globally and take advantage of that). It gives ISPs (otherwise mostly interchangeable) the opportunity to differentiate at a very low cost their product/service offerings from rivals in a meaningful way, and which will make a big difference to their customers (current, and potential). >#6: We are ignoring the problem. Blocking HTML,base64,attachements, etc. >still does not fix the fundamental problem of SMTP able to accept email >from forged senders. Most of that problem is greatly reduced if the spammer can't guess WHICH sender they need to forge in order to get their spam delivered to a given destination. >Another example would be challenge response for spam blocking. One of the >problem with challenge/response is the burden is puts on the sender to have >to reply to every email. That's why Eric Dean is working on a CRI protocol >that can do the verification automatically. Many publishers of free newsletters and mailing lists have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they're not willing to answer all those "challenge/response" E-mails. That idea, I think, is totally DOA. Again, I think that a recipients resources... their (maybe dialup!) bandwidth, their limited-size Inbox, etc etc... ought to be under THEIR control. They ought to be able to choose who they allow to use it, or to stuff what into it. And ideally, to cut the cost that the RECIPIENT must bear as much as possible, the filtering ought to be done as soon as possible after the spam or other undesired content reaches the destination domain. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:35:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09784 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLZ3U16713 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTXC-0004LU-Ve for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09763; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTXA-0003Xx-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTXA-0003Xu-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTXB-0004IF-GD; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTWu-0004Hd-In for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:34:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09735 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:34:41 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTWs-0003XV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:34:42 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTWr-0003XS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:34:41 -0400 Received: (cpmta 7391 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 14:34:39 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 14:34:39 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 21:34:39 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:33:50 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: , , , In-Reply-To: <001e01c33748$0f6053d0$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:00:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It should be noted that if you attach a digital signature to a >mail message then it will often appear as an attachment... Some >"attachments" aren't bad. Of course, and many people have people they regularly receive attachments from. That's why they should absolutely be able to allow receipt of attachments from those (and only those) approved/trusted senders to which they wish to give that right. But there is NO point in someone sending unannounced attachments to someone who may not be prepared to deal with them, or who doesn't want to receive them, or who even just doesn't want them chewing up space in their Inbox. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:36:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09828 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLa3017157 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTYB-0004Se-2Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09815; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTY8-0003YM-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTY8-0003YJ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTY9-0004Pd-BX; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTXT-0004M2-1m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09780 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTXQ-0003YC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:17 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTXQ-0003Y9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:16 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mheys@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5KLZAN2029641; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:11 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06355; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16115.32269.783632.400725@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> References: <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 19, 2003 at 22:14 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > The legal aspect is not within the scope of our group and even if it was, > there isn't much we can do anyway. So what technical solutions in this area > are possible? > > Yakov Virtually all proposals here imply a legal aspect. For example, RMX implies prevention of identity fraud, a crime. RMX (and related) is always proposed as a way to thwart those who are trying to fraudulently identify themselves as having some affiliation with another, usually readily recognizable, institution. That's illegal, so your comments would apply to their problem definition. What we haven't seemed to converge on is what is the root of the problem, where are efforts best expended, etc. Even if some are anxious to just get on with proposed solutions lacking any foundation in reality. I am asserting that the source of the actual problem with spam is the amplification of the distribution channel through illegal exploitation of others' resources (computation and bandwidth, via viruses.) If that's the case and I'm correct then expending effort on (e.g.) weak authentication schemes such as RMX is mostly a waste of time IN THIS SPHERE (it might still be useful for other problems, in fact I think it is.) There's a lot more to spam than knowing you don't want another penis enlargement message in your mailbox or that some of the header might be unreliable or the body trickily encoded with base64, quoted-printable and/or images. Yet those aspects get virtually all the attention here, primarily because they're easily understood by dabblers who haven't really come to understand the problem and believe they can work entirely from two pieces of information: what spam messages usually look like, and some mental model of how SMTP works. I am asserting that this is fool's gold and of little or no value to the perceived purpose of this group. The problem is how spammers amplify their distribution channels while keeping costs nearly at zero. Without this, they would virtually cease to exist. Given some agreement and more importantly realization that this is indeed the problem then we can proceed to have a meaningful dialogue on what possible counter-measures exist. But don't be so impatient demanding both a problem description and solution in one bite. You had trouble even digesting just the problem description alone. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:39:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09900 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLd5A18745 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTb7-0004sG-4i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09888; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTb4-0003Zq-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTb4-0003Zn-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTb3-0004qO-2M; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTam-0004qB-Ey for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:38:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09882 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTak-0003Zi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:38:42 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTai-0003Zf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:38:40 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5KLcaOQ010064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:38:36 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Benjamin Geer cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <20030620211651.GD3811@socialtools.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:38:36 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Benjamin Geer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 01:46:07PM -0500, Evan Harris wrote: > > How often do you get mail > > from someone you've never had contact with versus how much mail do you get > > from established relationships? > > > > Speaking for myself and the users on the test systems, that ratio is pretty > > small. > > It would be worth testing this assumption in a variety of large and small > corporate environments, rather than relying on your own experience and that > of people you know. Absolutely, please do! I'm very interested in hearing about your results. Evan _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:42:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10018 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLg2219431 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:42:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTdy-00053K-Ns for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:42:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10007; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTdw-0003bR-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:42:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTdv-0003bO-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTdw-00050K-Qb; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTdB-0004zD-KX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09970 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTd9-0003bA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:11 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTd8-0003b7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:10 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2469227 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306201509.h5KF9gWs008996@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200306201509.h5KF9gWs008996@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:06 -0400 At 9:09 AM -0600 6/20/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >As far as I can tell, all of the HTML formatting in your message >was gratuitious and not manually selected. In which case you would be wrong. It was triggered by my making one single word bold. > >Note that a lot of it was incredibly bad but typical machine-generated >HTML. For example many of the non-breaking spaces are obnoxious (but >hidden) noise HTML. Or notice that pair above. >But as far as I can tell, the fact that MUAs generate incredibly >bad HTML is irrelevant. It certainly could have done a better job, but since it was Eudora, and the the Eudora developers pretty much despise HTML email, I suspect they didn't spend a lot of time trying to make it efficient. After all, even with all that mess--it's still better than what Outlook generates. However. The real point of my response. You asked why, if HTML was so common, we didn't see more of it on this list. My posting (as I hoped) quickly generated a perfect example of why technical mailing lists don't have a lot of HTML email. At 2:36 PM -0600 6/20/03, xxx wrote: >If whatever you said is important, I'm sure you'll send it again without >the extraneous unreadble code. ;-) > >Please don't send HTML to mailing lists. Like any MIME attachment, HTML >should be sent only when you know the recipients can (and will) decode it >and make user of it. Chances are you don't know all the recipients of a >mailing list will be able to handle it. Thank you to the person (who shall remain anonymous) who sent me that off list. You couldn't have said it better if I'd planted you there :-). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:49:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10220 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLn5T20191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTkn-0005Fa-3y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10212; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTkk-0003e2-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTkj-0003dz-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTki-0005D8-OH; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTk9-0005Ch-LI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10171 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTk7-0003dZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:23 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTk6-0003dW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:22 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXH79626; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJA84022; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Message-ID: <003801c33775$acd1fc90$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:48:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id RAA10220 Gordon Peterson wrote: > But there is NO point in someone sending unannounced > attachments to someone who may not be prepared to > deal with them Given that a signature is an attachment, are you suggesting that I shouldn't be able to sign outgoing mail unless I have made previous arrangments with all recipients who might receive such signed messages? If such a rule were widely held, then the otherwise useful practice of signing mail messages is likely to never be accepted! bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 17:52:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10303 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KLq7h20815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTnj-0005Pd-2S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10278; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTng-0003fA-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTng-0003f7-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTnd-0005Nk-CH; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTmt-0005M1-DX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10271 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTmr-0003f4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:13 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTmq-0003f1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:12 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mheys@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5KLp1N2020886; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:02 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10097; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16115.33221.317731.760532@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620111843.00ba87d0@std5.imagineis.com> References: <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620111843.00ba87d0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:51:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 20, 2003 at 11:20 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > >Now that viruses have emerged (Jeem, Proxy-Guzu, sobig.a) which can > >make a computer (or, more to the point, millions of computers) an > >unwitting weapon against the entire net this problem has to be taken > >more seriously by Microsoft. > > Are any of these problems solvable by technical means? Going over and over > the illegality of spam does not help things, our group cannot make any > legal impact anyway - we are working on technical solutions. Yes, replacing all MS windows operating systems on all computers attached to the net with either Unix or a modern unix-like operating system (Linux, Mac OSX) would eliminate about 99% of the spam and put virtually all spammers out of business instantly. That's not entirely practical, but it is technical and it would address the problem I am describing and responds to your concerns. Other technical approaches are possible. No, we're not finished, sorry...maybe Ritalin would help you. After nearly ten years of grappling with this for you to demand an instant problem definition and solution (or cease discussion) in one fell swoop seems almost willfully obstructionist. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:01:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10608 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KM14B23135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTwO-000614-Ho for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10549; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTwL-0003hx-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTwL-0003hu-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTwL-0005y3-Gu; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTw1-0005xd-Vm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:00:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10528 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:00:38 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTvz-0003hp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:00:39 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTvy-0003hm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:00:38 -0400 Received: (cpmta 1944 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 15:00:38 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 15:00:38 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 22:00:38 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:59:26 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:26:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea To: , , , In-Reply-To: <003801c33775$acd1fc90$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:26:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, "Bob Wyman" wrote: >Gordon Peterson wrote: >> But there is NO point in someone sending unannounced >> attachments to someone who may not be prepared to >> deal with them > Given that a signature is an attachment, are you suggesting that >I shouldn't be able to sign outgoing mail unless I have made previous >arrangments with all recipients who might receive such signed messages? Yes, I think that there is NO point in sending "attachment signatures" unsolicited, to people who maybe don't have software capable of dealing with those attachments and authenticating them. >If such a rule were widely held, then the otherwise useful practice of >signing mail messages is likely to never be accepted! It's not "useful" to recipients who have no way of dealing with those attachments. And those are the folks who you're saying should find them, unwanted, in their E-mail inboxes just because the sender has this geeky feeling that they're somehow "cool". Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:01:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10659 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KM1Gw23457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTwa-00066G-9B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10571; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTwX-0003i6-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTwX-0003i3-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:01:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTqX-0005f8-Kz; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TTqG-0005Yl-UJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:54:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10356 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:54:41 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTqE-0003gN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:54:42 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TTqD-0003gK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:54:41 -0400 Received: (cpmta 27128 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 14:54:37 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 14:54:37 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 21:54:37 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:54:21 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:21:28 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:21:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: >Could we please cancel this thread (and not cc it to wishlist@microsoft.com). Actually, I think that they are certainly a party with an interest in this discussion, especially when talk turns to the possibility of a lawsuit due to their defaulting to send HTML-burdened E-mail... I think that's very timely given their lawsuits filed earlier this week against numerous spammers, on the basis of wasted, unwanted mail volume. >People use formatted email. Whether they need, or want to is besides >the point. They do. Actually, if they are sending it that way WITHOUT NEEDING OR WANTING TO, and if the result is a 3-5x increase in the byte volume of their E-mails, then it VERY MUCH is within 'the point'. It is as much an ISP cost issue (maybe even more of a cost issue) than the spam issue is. >No amount of talking is going to set back the >clock to the days of the ascii internet. I'm not proposing that. I'm just offering a modest proposal... that unsolicited, first-contact E-mail be restricted BY DEFAULT from containing HTML, attachments, and encoding... and that those restrictions can be subsequently lifted by the recipients for senders of their choice. Control, cost containment, choice, and responsibility. Few other proposals I've seen discussed would yield such a quick payback for such an easy, compatible, incrementally viable implementation. >Let's talk about things that can actually be changed, Oh, this DEFINITELY falls into that category!! >And seriously. Even if you believe that blocking HTML is feasible. It is VERY, VERY feasible. In fact, it's probably the EASIEST idea to implement (and the easiest for a SINGLE, ENLIGHTENED ISP to implement all by themselves if necessary) of anything we've discussed here. (And it's not "blocking", it's merely SELECTIVE PERMITTING, based on the recipient/sender address pair). >It isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference in the amount >of spam that gets sent. Spammers do their best to make their email >look like real email to the end user. The spam I get here uses ALL MANNER OF TRICKS that legitimate E-mail does not use. While it IS true that they HOPE that the end users won't notice the sleight of hand, anything we can do to put a spotlight on the ruse is probably a good move. >If the end user gets email as plain text, then spammers will send plain text. This isn't rocket science--it's basic economics. Spam in plain text will deny spammers many of their most cherished tricks. It makes it harder to make a living as a spammer. That also (basic economics!) ought to reduce spam volume. >At that point, Gordon falls back on the argument that at least we >will have saved in the number of *bytes* sent. Which is true. But >saving bytes is not the charter of this group. The main motivation on the part of ISPs in controlling spam is to save bytes. So I think their interest in the area is a lot more than you'd suggest. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:06:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11579 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KM63023866 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:06:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU1D-0006Cr-AT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11507; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU1A-0003ql-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:06:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU1A-0003qi-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:06:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU1A-0006Az-Qq; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:06:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU0C-0006AD-8b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:05:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11321 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:04:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU09-0003pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:04:57 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU07-0003pk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:04:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620180426.00ba88a0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:04:35 -0400 At 05:51 PM 6/20/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 20, 2003 at 11:20 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > >Now that viruses have emerged (Jeem, Proxy-Guzu, sobig.a) which can > > >make a computer (or, more to the point, millions of computers) an > > >unwitting weapon against the entire net this problem has to be taken > > >more seriously by Microsoft. > > > > Are any of these problems solvable by technical means? Going over and > over > > the illegality of spam does not help things, our group cannot make any > > legal impact anyway - we are working on technical solutions. > >Yes, replacing all MS windows operating systems on all computers >attached to the net with either Unix or a modern unix-like operating >system (Linux, Mac OSX) would eliminate about 99% of the spam and put >virtually all spammers out of business instantly. > >That's not entirely practical, but it is technical and it would >address the problem I am describing and responds to your >concerns. Other technical approaches are possible. No, we're not >finished, sorry...maybe Ritalin would help you. > >After nearly ten years of grappling with this for you to demand an >instant problem definition and solution (or cease discussion) in one >fell swoop seems almost willfully obstructionist. Barry, I am not demanding a definition or a solution. I would like to help to solve the problem just like everyone else. I do not think that anyone in here means bad, everyone means well. What I would like to see is more discussion of this topic from everyone including urself. Simply stating the facts and demanding a legal solutions does not help. I would like to see a technical discussion surrounding this approach and possible solutions. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:08:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11828 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KM83a25565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:08:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU39-0006eG-TA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:08:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11756; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU37-0003s9-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:08:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU36-0003s6-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:08:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU37-0006ZE-JM; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU2k-0006Xi-0H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:07:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11706 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU2h-0003rY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:07:35 -0400 Received: from mail.cdt.org ([206.112.85.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU2g-0003rM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:07:34 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.19] (66.safeclick.net [63.119.245.66]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26B44900DB for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: john@mail.cdt.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: John Morris Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:07:33 -0400 At 1:24 PM -0500 6/20/03, Evan Harris wrote: > > > I would agree that users should be made aware of any possible >privacy risks, >> > but most users are already aware that mailer level statistics >>are kept, and >> > this is just the same thing, just a different format. >> >> That mailer logs are also quite sensitive does not make your records >> less sensitive. > >The only issue I had with the original statement was the claim that this >method should cause greater concern for privacy. While there are privacy >concerns with any statistics, I wouldn't consider this method any more of a >danger than normal server logs, since nothing is kept that couldn't be found >there. > >Evan FWIW, my original point was that the grey list approach is a greater cause for concern than a simple white list approach (which can reveal a user's correspondents but not the date and time of the first and last e-mail and the number of successful e-mails). I agree that the grey list approach is not radically more problematic than mail server logs. But even on that point, having two places where private info aggregates is worse than having one. Moreover, the greylist might in some cases be easier to locate or access -- in some situations, for example a civil litigant might have fairly direct access to his or her grey list (and thus be easily required to produce it), but the related mail server logs might be held by a third party ISP not under the litigant's control. And, once produced, the greylist can serve as an incomplete but still useful index into the mail server logs. By pressing these points, I am not intending to be negative toward the proposal -- it certainly looks to be worth exploring further. But, when stacking this up against some of the other ideas and proposals, I think it is unavoidable that this has greater privacy implications than some other approaches. Now if it is also significantly more effective, then greylists may well be worth the greater privacy risk (and there may be techniques that can reduce the privacy risks, such as the use of one way hashes of the triplets). John _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:11:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12155 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KMB6o25894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU66-0006jZ-OR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12091; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU64-0003tw-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU63-0003tt-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU61-0006hc-Vh; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:11:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU5b-0006hH-NQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:10:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12040 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU5Z-0003tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:10:33 -0400 Received: from 000-228-098.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.130.7] helo=68.27.130.7 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU5X-0003th-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:10:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16115.32269.783632.400725@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:10:14 -0400 At 05:35 PM 6/20/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 19, 2003 at 22:14 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > The legal aspect is not within the scope of our group and even if it was, > > there isn't much we can do anyway. So what technical solutions in this > area > > are possible? > > > > Yakov > >Virtually all proposals here imply a legal aspect. For example, RMX >implies prevention of identity fraud, a crime. RMX (and related) is >always proposed as a way to thwart those who are trying to >fraudulently identify themselves as having some affiliation with >another, usually readily recognizable, institution. That's illegal, so >your comments would apply to their problem definition. > >What we haven't seemed to converge on is what is the root of the >problem, where are efforts best expended, etc. Even if some are >anxious to just get on with proposed solutions lacking any foundation >in reality. > >I am asserting that the source of the actual problem with spam is the >amplification of the distribution channel through illegal exploitation >of others' resources (computation and bandwidth, via viruses.) > >If that's the case and I'm correct then expending effort on (e.g.) >weak authentication schemes such as RMX is mostly a waste of time IN >THIS SPHERE (it might still be useful for other problems, in fact I >think it is.) > >There's a lot more to spam than knowing you don't want another penis >enlargement message in your mailbox or that some of the header might >be unreliable or the body trickily encoded with base64, >quoted-printable and/or images. > >Yet those aspects get virtually all the attention here, primarily >because they're easily understood by dabblers who haven't really come >to understand the problem and believe they can work entirely from two >pieces of information: what spam messages usually look like, and some >mental model of how SMTP works. > >I am asserting that this is fool's gold and of little or no value to >the perceived purpose of this group. > >The problem is how spammers amplify their distribution channels while >keeping costs nearly at zero. Without this, they would virtually cease >to exist. > >Given some agreement and more importantly realization that this is >indeed the problem then we can proceed to have a meaningful dialogue >on what possible counter-measures exist. > >But don't be so impatient demanding both a problem description and >solution in one bite. You had trouble even digesting just the problem >description alone. So your bottom line is that the spam problem is based on "how spammers amplify their distribution channels while keeping costs nearly at zero." Legally pursuing spammers is not something we can affect or do in this group. But what we CAN do, is look at these aspects closer and see if any technical solutions are possible. There are several approaches that have been mentioned that might have relevance to this. First of all, making sure email is not untraceble allows for LEA to catch the spammers. This would involve either changing SMTP, implementing C/R, or some other system that would allow for traceability. Domain names being owned by spammers is a problem too. Solutions must be made to deal with that as well. Foreign ISPs, allowing for spam are also a problem. And as you have mentioned many times before computers infected with viruses and other similar junk are a problem as well, although I do not see any possible solutions for that as well, not even any avenues of research. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:15:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12576 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KMF4326640 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU9w-0006vb-NI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12507; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU9t-0003v9-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU9t-0003v6-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU9u-0006tC-AF; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TU9r-0006sX-O2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:14:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12481 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:14:55 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU9p-0003v3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:14:57 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TU9o-0003v0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:14:56 -0400 Received: (cpmta 18001 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 15:14:55 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 15:14:55 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 22:14:55 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:14:42 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:49 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Authentication tokens Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:41:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Authentication tokens typically require special software > provisions on the part of both the sender and the recipient. > You're new to the list and thus have probably missed some of the earlier discussion. Indeed, and thanks for understanding that. :-) > While authentication tokens *typically* require software support at both sender and receiver, there is a class of them that only requires software support on the receiver side. These are the "single user" addresses. I might, for instance, create an address that authorized you to send me mail. Such an address would look something like: "bob+1092837@example.com". The "token" part of this address would be a hash of your "From:" address. With such an address, you don't need any software on your side to pass the token. The first problem I see with that is that you basically cannot give your E-mail address to anybody without a) knowing EXACTLY what E-mail address they'll be replying from, and b) being able to compute on-the-spot the hashcode they'll need to write you. Besides the issue of TWO users in such situation trying to decide what E-mail address to give the other (where EACH's E-mail address will depend on the other's address... and neither can give their E-mail address first!) there's also (for instance) the case of a mailing list like this one... where each person's E-mail address they use for subscribing to the list will appear in the messages posted to the list, but nobody other than the listbot can possibly reply to them using that address. While an interesting curiosity, I think that has a lot more problems than my permissions-based approach. Now, one POSSIBLE hybrid that COULD be interesting maybe is to say that E-mail arriving without the code token in the E-mail address would be handled differently somehow with regard to the permissions list... although at first blush, I don't see that it buys you a whole lot that you don't already get from just using the sender/recipient address pair to begin with. >> The whitelist I propose NEVER needs to be sent to anybody, > ... only just the point where the filtering is done. > Even if never sent to anyone, there is still a privacy concern with whitelists since if they are explicit lists, they provide a single list of all of your correspondents. Actually, they ONLY provide a list of those to whom you have assigned "special" rights. ISP's e-mail logs ALREADY give those ISPs a list of everyone you've ever received mail from, or sent mail to, so I think your argument doesn't really impress me very much. > In many cases, people will feel that compiling such a list is a risk to their privacy since such a list would be open to inspection by government agencies under some circumstances and to employees of an ISP if the list is maintained remotely. Again, a red herring... those logs (lists) already exist. > Even if only maintained on your personal machine, it could be embarrassing if people with physical access to your machine could discover the full universe of your correspondents. They could do the same thing (with access to your machine) by investigating your E-mail archives and address book. Far (far!!) more revealing than ANY mere list of trusted senders and the permissions assigned to each. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:22:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12955 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KMM5Z28652 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUGj-0007S3-EE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12930; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUGg-0003yQ-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUGg-0003yN-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUGf-0007Q4-Al; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUFh-0007Nt-Pq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:21:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12896 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:20:57 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUFf-0003xa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:20:59 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUFe-0003xX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:20:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 24521 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 15:20:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 15:20:57 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 22:20:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:20:10 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:47:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > And using HTML rather than ASCII can be a service to the readers of your mail. CAN be, but it's sure NOT a service for those people whose preferred E-mail clients don't do much good with it. Again, I think it should be a CHOICE for the RECIPIENT to decide. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 18:48:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13556 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KMm7p32297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUfv-0008Oq-Kq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13524; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUfs-000468-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUfs-000465-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUfp-0008MI-9G; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUer-0008GZ-Qw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:47:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13477 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:46:57 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUep-00044u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:46:59 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUeo-00044r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:46:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 6645 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 15:46:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 15:46:57 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 22:46:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:45:47 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:12:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] "more readable" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:12:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> 'Unnecessary' HTML (just P and DIV tags): 23 > This is not necessarily a valid measure of utility. It is often the case that HTML is displayed using fonts which are different from those used to display "ASCII" messages. Given that those fonts are often variable pitch and given that variable pitch fonts are known to be (for most people) much more readable, one can argue that there is utility in sending HTML formatted messages even if that HTML doesn't include special rendering of text. Most E-mail programs, if they have special font provisions at all, have the ability for the users to set their fonts to whatever settings they choose (size, color, typeface, whatever). Again, the RECIPIENT should be able to set THEIR choice (e.g. they might be colorblind, and the sender's choice of colors might not be appropriate, etc etc.) Likewise, a font which looks fine on the sender's machine might not even EXIST on the recipient's machine. If the recipient "feels there is value" in displaying incoming mail messages in (say) 18 point script, then THEY should set their mailer to that and it shouldn't be overriden by the sender. > The utility comes from sending the message in a format which is likely to be easier to read as well as to be more readily understood by the reader. I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of what the READER finds the most readable... based on THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color preferences, THEIR screen resolution, etc etc. And if the reader chooses to give that permission to certain of their trusted senders, they ought to be able to do that if they wish. But they shouldn't be subjected to the whims and nonsense chosen by some random spammer somewhere. (such as a spammer who decides there is "utility and value" in putting some of their (perhaps legally required) message in 2-point white text on a white background...) Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 19:02:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13839 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KN28W01547 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUtU-0000Os-MJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13825; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUtR-0004Bh-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUtQ-0004Bb-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUtN-0000L1-7i; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUsP-0000KH-HE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13800 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:00:56 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUsM-0004BG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:00:58 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUsL-0004BD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:00:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 22688 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 16:00:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 16:00:57 -0700 X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 23:00:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:00:16 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:27:23 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org Cc: wishlist@microsoft.com In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620160658.00b9a940@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:27:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >At 03:00 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> >> However, you would cut down you spam load significantly if you rejected >> > all mail with "Content-type: text/html" SMTP or MIME entity headers >> > from strangers. >> >> > How can you have it both ways? You either receive email from strangers >>or you don't. >> >>The point is BY DEFAULT to reject unsolicited HTML-burdened E-mail, or >>mail from untrusted/unknown senders that contains attachments. By so >>doing, you will shrink spam byte volume by probably 90% or more. You'll >>also eliminate in one fell swoop the GREAT majority of viruses, worms, and >>trojans. >> >>Plain ASCII text will continue to be delivered as before. >>[..] >My main problem with this and similar proposals is that they assume that a >consent system is in place that lets users authorize certain people to send >them email. The problem is that no such system exists and the goal of this >group is to make such system (see charter). Instead of bickering over a >specific filtering case, perhaps we should consider the larger question of >consent systems and how users can express such consent. The whole point is that THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE consensus agreement. It can be implemented by a single ISP using technology of their choice. We could discuss suggested 'best practices' and such, although this sort of thing (if designed well) is the sort of thing which will differentiate one ISP's services from a competitor. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 19:02:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13869 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KN2DY01770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUtZ-0000ST-Mr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13824; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUtR-0004Be-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUtQ-0004Ba-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUtN-0000L9-Ia; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUtD-0000Ki-6n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13820 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUtA-0004BX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:48 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUt9-0004BU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:47 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5KN1bl7017361; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:38 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA24666; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16115.37457.110080.771541@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620180426.00ba88a0@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620180426.00ba88a0@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:01:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 20, 2003 at 18:04 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > I am not demanding a definition or a solution. I would like to help to > solve the problem just like everyone else. I do not think that anyone in > here means bad, everyone means well. What I would like to see is more > discussion of this topic from everyone including urself. Simply stating the > facts and demanding a legal solutions does not help. I would like to see a > technical discussion surrounding this approach and possible solutions. Of course it helps, why wouldn't a more accurate problem description help? You sure you got enough sleep last night? And no one is "demanding" a legal solution. But, speaking in general terms, even if we devise a technical means to make an illegal activity difficult or impossible it's still worthwhile noting that the underlying behavior is (willfully) illegal and not just some sort of act of ignorance or a malfunction we are correcting. Ultimately there would be those in legislative and law enforcement venues who would value that opinion, from a technical perspective. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 19:34:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14413 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KNY7c06706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TVOR-0001k5-CJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14399; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TVOP-0004Kj-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TVOP-0004Kg-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TVOL-0001iB-GI; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TVOC-0001hz-Gs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14394 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TVOB-0004Kd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:51 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TVOA-0004Ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:50 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5KNXoBk017035; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:50 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02169; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:33:49 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 20, 2003 at 18:10 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > So your bottom line is that the spam problem is based on "how spammers > amplify their distribution channels while keeping costs nearly at zero." I propose that if that is removed (or seriously diminished) the problem will become mostly inconsequential and can then be dealt with more in the manner of "consenting communications" via various methods, mostly MUA, routinely mentioned here. > Legally pursuing spammers is not something we can affect or do in this > group. But what we CAN do, is look at these aspects closer and see if any > technical solutions are possible. > > There are several approaches that have been mentioned that might have > relevance to this. First of all, making sure email is not untraceble allows > for LEA to catch the spammers. This would involve either changing SMTP, > implementing C/R, or some other system that would allow for traceability. > Domain names being owned by spammers is a problem too. Solutions must be > made to deal with that as well. Foreign ISPs, allowing for spam are also a > problem. And as you have mentioned many times before computers infected > with viruses and other similar junk are a problem as well, although I do > not see any possible solutions for that as well, not even any avenues of > research. Many years ago I had a professor who ran an 800-student lecture like a discussion group taking questions at any time. His only admonition, when a hand went up, would be ``are you SURE the other 799 people in the room are interested in what you are about to ask? Or can it wait until after class?'' It worked pretty well. On that note, I won't try to address your telling us of your personal inability to think of any possible solutions...[or]...avenues of research... Let's start easy. We've seen various blacklists. I consider them a mostly bad idea, perhaps of some use to individuals, but it's something we should all be familiar with. Some of the more notorious black lists actively scanned the net with software for systems which fit their notion of "open relays" and would add these to the net as a hazard. Now, would it be possible to scan similarly for systems infected with Jeem or one of the other spammer slave bugs? What would we do with that information? That's probably not necessary to answer, unless someone doubts anything good could be done. But, for example, inform the owner, an ISP might quarantine or mail rate-limit a known infected computer until it's fixed, block it entirely (from mail, from everything), etc. Also, could these viruses be used as honeypots to gather information about who is using them for both evidence and to just get those perps shut down and/or blocked? Anyhow, this all starts with whether it's possible to write a piece of software which begins to scan the net for infected systems? I don't know enough about these specific viruses right now to answer that question: Do they use hard to guess passwords? Do they give failure indications on use of a bad passwd which identifies the infection, or listen on a specific port, etc? Maybe we should also issue an RFC that simply says that the days of computer, including personal and desktop computer, operating systems being vulnerable to viruses (within some problem definition) should have been over years ago via widely distributed and well-known techniques utilized in highly successful and comparable operating systems software. As such, any operating system which does not meet a minimum standard of being viral resistant (obviously some detail is needed here) and is connected to the internet is non-conformant to RFC XYZZY or however that's usually worded and is a potential hazard to the net at large. For the love of money, XP and Windows/ME (and all earlier MS windows) are both vulnerable to Jeem, sobig.a, and Proxy-Guzu, some of the more cited viruses used in this sort of spamming. And, in all cases, according to Symantec's database: Systems Not Affected: Macintosh, OS/2, UNIX, Linux I rest my case. I think we know who's handing out the free whiskey and loaded shotguns in the bad part of town. Make them stop doing that. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 20 21:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16002 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5L199T19132 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TWsP-0004yV-Pk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15969; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TWsN-0004hN-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TWsM-0004hK-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TWsH-0004wc-HC; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TWrN-0004w7-08 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:08:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15961 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TWrK-0004hA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:08:02 -0400 Received: from ckmso1.att.com ([12.20.58.69] helo=ckmso1.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TWrK-0004h7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:08:02 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h5L17WL7012338 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:07:32 -0400 Received: from att.com (unknown[135.210.24.43](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20030621010556gw100r9hfae> (Authid: tony); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:05:56 +0000 Message-ID: <3EF3AFE4.1000307@att.com> From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 21:07:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gep2@terabites.com wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, "Bob Wyman" wrote: >>Gordon Peterson wrote: >>> But there is NO point in someone sending unannounced attachments >>> to someone who may not be prepared to deal with them ... >> Given that a signature is an attachment, are you suggesting that I >> shouldn't be able to sign outgoing mail unless I have made previous >> arrangments with all recipients who might receive such signed >> messages? > > Yes, I think that there is NO point in sending "attachment signatures" > unsolicited, to people who maybe don't have software capable of dealing with > those attachments and authenticating them. > >>If such a rule were widely held, then the otherwise useful practice of >>signing mail messages is likely to never be accepted! > > It's not "useful" to recipients who have no way of dealing with those > attachments. And those are the folks who you're saying should find > them, unwanted, in their E-mail inboxes just because the sender has > this geeky feeling that they're somehow "cool". Excuse me, but there are many people who feel that promoting signed email is one of the steps needed for solving the spam problem. >>Especially<< for people sending unsolicited email. It has nothing to do with the geek factor. You may disagree with whether signed email would help solve the spam problem. But if it does become accepted, then attachments will also become the accepted practice. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 00:27:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19470 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5L4R8k10545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TZy0-0002k0-Bc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19463; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TZxx-0005br-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TZxx-0005bo-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TZxt-0002i5-8i; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TZxm-0002hu-5i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:26:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19458 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TZxj-0005bl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:26:51 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2] helo=novitraq.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TZxj-0005bh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:26:51 -0400 Received: from ([24.200.195.55]) by novitraq.com with WebMail (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD7185DFF Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:23:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting From: Elric Pedder To: asrg@ietf.org X-Client-Ip: 24.200.195.55 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Hops: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:23:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Morris in > At 1:24 PM -0500 6/20/03, Evan Harris wrote: [snip] > >The only issue I had with the original statement was the claim that this > >method should cause greater concern for privacy. While there are privacy > >concerns with any statistics, I wouldn't consider this method any more of a > >danger than normal server logs, since nothing is kept that couldn't be found > >there. > > > >Evan > > FWIW, my original point was that the grey list approach is a greater > cause for concern than a simple white list approach (which can reveal > a user's correspondents but not the date and time of the first and > last e-mail and the number of successful e-mails). > > I agree that the grey list approach is not radically more > problematic than mail server logs. But even on that point, having > two places where private info aggregates is worse than having one. > > Moreover, the greylist might in some cases be easier to locate or > access -- in some situations, for example a civil litigant might have > fairly direct access to his or her grey list (and thus be easily > required to produce it), but the related mail server logs might be > held by a third party ISP not under the litigant's control. And, > once produced, the greylist can serve as an incomplete but still > useful index into the mail server logs. If only a hash of the triplet were stored, would this solve the privacy issue? Regard, - Elric -- Elric Pedder Mailtraq Development (www.mailtraq.com) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 00:50:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19728 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5L4o4B13405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TaKC-0003U8-Jo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19718; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TaKA-0005fW-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TaK9-0005fT-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TaK9-0003SG-Cr; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TaJP-0003Ru-FB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:49:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19711 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TaJM-0005fL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:49:12 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TaJL-0005fI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:49:12 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5L4nBAI007729 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:49:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306210449.h5L4nBAI007729@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:49:11 -0600 (MDT) > From: Elric Pedder > ... > If only a hash of the triplet were stored, would this solve > the privacy issue? No. Consider a "dictionary attack." If you have a copy of the database and want to know if Steve Case sent Bill Gates a message, you hash those two addresses with a likely IP address and see if you can get a hit in the database. If you do not know the exact IP address, you can guess it is one of a few thousand (or at most a billion) and make the corresponding few thousand (or billion) probes of your copy of the database. Like a dictionary attack on /etc/passwd, this attack may not be quick, but it is effective. Whether the hash is easily reversible like CRC-32 or a cryptographic function like SHA or MD5 is irrelevant except perhaps for the speed of the attack. This sort of thing is why hashes of target addresses are not sent by DCC clients to servers to be stored in the distributed database. It is also why none of the hashes of mail from white-listed senders or to non-participating receivers is sent to DCC servers by clients. It might be interesting to consider something similar for the Greylisting database. What if only the IP address of the SMTP client and the Rcpt_To value is checked? I saw some comments about available counter-attacks by spammers, but I don't recall seeing a clear description of the easiest. Spammers do not need to do real queuing to get though a greylist. They need only send to the same target list from the same SMTP client a few hours after an initial spew. Mailboxes protected by a greylist will accept the second copy. Other mailboxes will see two copies. That wouldn't be remarkable, because some spammers are already hitting individual addresses with several copies per spew. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 05:44:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04891 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5L9iFc14169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Teut-0003gS-9g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04887; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Teup-0006le-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Teup-0006lb-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Teuf-0003eZ-IR; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Teub-0003eO-2p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:43:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04884 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TeuX-0006lY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:43:53 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TeuX-0006lV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:43:53 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19TeuV-0005Xn-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:43:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.102 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:43:51 +0100 > Foreign ISPs, allowing for spam are also > a > problem. "Foreign"? What does that mean? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 05:56:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04984 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5L9u4I14914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tf6K-0003sT-HG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04977; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tf6H-0006nJ-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tf6G-0006nG-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tf6H-0003qb-HF; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tf5P-0003qG-5L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:55:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04973 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tf5L-0006nD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:55:03 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tf5L-0006nA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:55:03 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Tf5K-0006a7-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:55:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Authentication tokens To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:55:02 +0100 >ISP's e-mail logs ALREADY give those ISPs a list of everyone you've ever >received mail from, or sent mail to, so I think your argument doesn't >really >impress me very much. > Will people *please* stop baldly asserting this. As far as I know, most providers in the UK / EU do not retain traffic data for any longer than they *have to* ( for business purposes ), the concern is that it may be illegal to do anything more. In other jurisdictions where these concerns do not apply, providers may have data retention policies in place for other reasons. The difference is that while mail logs MAY preserve some traffic data, many proposals made in this group require that this data MUST be kept. Accordingly, the burden of "securing" it is higher. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 12:05:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10538 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LG5Ak09875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TkrW-0002ZC-4i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10515; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TkrU-000064-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TkrU-000061-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TkrM-0002XK-UU; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:05:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tkqm-0002Wp-VY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:04:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10508 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:04:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tkql-00005q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:04:23 -0400 Received: from mail.cdt.org ([206.112.85.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tkql-00005Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:04:23 -0400 Received: by mail.cdt.org (Postfix, from userid 534) id 0EDF74900C8; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:02:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Morris" Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting To: asrg@ietf.org X-Originating-IP: 66.92.149.214 X-Mailer: Usermin 1.020 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="bound1056211348" Message-Id: <20030621160229.0EDF74900C8@mail.cdt.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:02:29 -0400 (EDT) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --bound1056211348 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote .. > > From: Elric Pedder > > > ... > > If only a hash of the triplet were stored, would this solve > > the privacy issue? > > No. Consider a "dictionary attack." If you have a copy of the database > and want to know if Steve Case sent Bill Gates a message, you hash > those two addresses with a likely IP address and see if you can get > a hit in the database. If you do not know the exact IP address, you > can guess it is one of a few thousand (or at most a billion) and make > the corresponding few thousand (or billion) probes of your copy of > the database. Like a dictionary attack on /etc/passwd, this attack > may not be quick, but it is effective. I agree with Vernon's comments. Hashing the triplets would not "solve" the privacy problem, for the reasons Vernon explains. But I do think it could "reduce" the privacy problems, because a dictionary-like attack would be less effective if you do not have any idea about who has sent e-mail to the person whose greylist you are attacking. It would also make the greylist better protected from a more casual attack -- for example, a colleague or family member sneaking a quick peek at someone's greylist. But, hashing the triplets would certainly not make all of the privacy problems disappear. Indeed, even if one could come up with a hash that was resistant to kind of attack Vernon details, the other information in the database could reveal important personal information even without knowing who sent an e-mail. For example, if you are trying to investigate whether person X made an initial contact with person Y during a given period of time, Y's hashed greylist could establish that someone contacted Y for the first time at a time specific (which could be valuable even if you cannot determine whether the someone was X). John --bound1056211348-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 13:28:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11312 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LHS9A15920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tm9p-00048h-Fb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11286; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm9n-0000IT-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm9m-0000IM-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tm9h-00044R-G2; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tm8l-000448-KH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:27:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11275 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm8j-0000ID-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:27:01 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm8i-0000I9-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:27:00 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471149; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:26:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: gep2@terabites.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Cc: , Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:30:14 -0400 At 5:26 PM -0500 6/20/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >It's not "useful" to recipients who have no way of dealing with those >attachments. And those are the folks who you're saying should find them, >unwanted, in their E-mail inboxes just because the sender has this >geeky feeling >that they're somehow "cool". I typically sign all my email. The only reason I'm not now is because I'm waiting for a new version of the plugin. This has nothing to do with "cool". It has to do with being able to verify what I actually said. Whether the recipient has the necessary software is irrelevant. They have the message, and should it be necessary, they (or anyone else) can verify that it came from me. But of course the most critical thing here you are missing in Bob's message is the issue of verification. You keep talking about "first time" as though it means something. One of the major issues discussed on this group is the question of how you identify a person. It's something you need to do for whitelisting. And it's something that virtually every proposal on this list depends on to one extent or another. Your proposal depends on it too. If a large number of systems on the internet start depending on whitelisting, then spammers will start seeking out ways of sending you email from addresses that you have probably whitelisted. The whole point of a signature is to attach an unforgeable identity to a message. In fact the most useful time to have that identity nailed down *is* the first time you receive a message. By ruling that out, you have opened a hole in the security of your solution, and the spammers will happily walk right into it if they have nowhere else to go. (For discussions of how spammers could (and do) find out who you have white-listed, search the archives.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 13:47:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11604 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LHl5d18114 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TmS9-0004i5-Of for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11526; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TmS7-0000MF-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TmS6-0000MC-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TmS5-0004gA-A2; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TmRc-0004fv-U9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:46:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11455 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TmRa-0000L3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:46:30 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TmRZ-0000Kz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:46:30 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5LHkT0w003604 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:46:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306211746.h5LHkT0w003604@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:46:29 -0600 (MDT) > From: Kee Hinckley > >So by your count, 25/144 or 17% involved real HTML? > >That's more than I predicted, but less than it seemed others suggested. > > I would guess that's not unusual for a non-technhical mailing list. > I suspect person-to-person (letters from your Mom, that sort of > things) will have a higher HTML ratio, but we'll see. We're talking about real HTML, not HTML that is present only because Netscape and Outlook generate HTML by default. Perhaps your Mom is different from most people who use computers only casually. Most people are less likely to use text formatting than the apparently fairly computer savvy contributors to that mailing list. Someone mentioned something about an "apple-B" key apparently in connection to making a word bold. That is meaningless to the majority of users who have PCs instead of MACs. For several reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if MAC users are more likely than average to use real HTML formatting. I'm irked at the demands to squelch this topic. This topic has at least as much hope of having some useful result as the zillions of words spent on "CR" and "CRI." It makes no sense to talk about filtering HTML by default for the immediately foreseeable future, but BCPs on aspects of spam, virus, worms, or privacy could quite properly and valuably urge that HTML be used only when really required or explicitly requested. The current practice of bloating mail by 10X encoding with a text/plain version and a visibly identical text/html version is nasty, bad, and incompetent. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 14:18:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11313 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LHS9215937 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tm9p-00048y-Ji for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11285; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm9n-0000IW-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm9m-0000IQ-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tm9h-00044Z-Qx; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tm8l-00044D-WD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:27:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11278 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm8j-0000IG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:27:01 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tm8j-0000I9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:27:01 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471157; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:26:58 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306201736.h5KHa5Kr019614@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <20030620165109.GB3578@socialtools.net> <200306201736.h5KHa5Kr019614@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:33:17 -0400 At 11:36 AM -0600 6/20/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >So by your count, 25/144 or 17% involved real HTML? >That's more than I predicted, but less than it seemed others suggested. I would guess that's not unusual for a non-technhical mailing list. I suspect person-to-person (letters from your Mom, that sort of things) will have a higher HTML ratio, but we'll see. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 15:04:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12852 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LJ4VK23786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tnf5-0006BZ-Nj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12776; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tnf2-0000dG-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tnf1-0000d1-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tnea-00065g-Lh; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tne0-00065F-Ga for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12655 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tndx-0000cd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:21 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tndw-0000cZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:21 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471332; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306201806.h5KI6aJp025841@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <003201c33754$14c12a50$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> <200306201806.h5KI6aJp025841@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:35:50 -0400 At 12:06 PM -0600 6/20/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >That's wrong. If you as a mail receiver like variable pitch fonts, >then you can have them with common MUAs with plaintext mail simply by >configuring your MUA. If you don't like variable pitch fonts, then Which works fine until you get email from someone who assumed you were using fixed pitch. I've tried it, it's not worth the hassle. Lots of plain/text messages don't assume fixed pitch, but when they do, they *really* do. >Do you think much HTML mail specifies a font by other than >or a numeric size? My impression is otherwise. Absolutely, all the time. In fact, in the code I just wrote to look for hand-generated HTML, I specifically count font tags as hand generated only if the face or the size changes from what was used in the previous font tag. If I just looked to a face tag, just about everything from Outlook would get marked as hand-generated. Even my pre-teen daughters send multi-font email. Don't look at me. *I* didn't tell them how. In fact, in one of my older daughter's first messages to a friend, she figured out how to cut and paste the smiley graphics from iChat into the mail program, and mailed off a message containing 200 itsy bitsy TIF images of different smiley faces. (Bummer drag--first message to someone, and it was HTML.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 15:04:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12854 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LJ4Wc23803 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tnf6-0006Bq-25 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12778; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tnf2-0000dA-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tnf1-0000d0-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tneb-00065o-0y; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tne1-00065K-GY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12658 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tndy-0000cj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:22 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tndx-0000cf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:21 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471329; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:22 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306210449.h5L4nBAI007729@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200306210449.h5L4nBAI007729@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:38:48 -0400 At 10:49 PM -0600 6/20/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: >I saw some comments about available counter-attacks by spammers, but >I don't recall seeing a clear description of the easiest. Spammers >do not need to do real queuing to get though a greylist. They need >only send to the same target list from the same SMTP client a few >hours after an initial spew. Mailboxes protected by a greylist will >accept the second copy. Other mailboxes will see two copies. That >wouldn't be remarkable, because some spammers are already hitting >individual addresses with several copies per spew. I agree. In fact, I think this makes greylisting a very bad idea. It magnifies the tragedy of the commons. Everyone tries to protect themselves and ends up making the problem worse for everyone else. In the short term it works well for individuals. As soon as it becomes popular, it doubles the spam traffic and solves nothing. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 15:05:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12888 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LJ4b323823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TnfB-0006CA-2S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12774; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tnf2-0000dD-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:28 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tnf1-0000d3-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tneb-00065w-Bm; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tne3-00065P-4g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12663 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tne0-0000cp-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:24 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tndz-0000cm-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:23 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471333; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: gep2@terabites.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] "more readable" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:35:27 -0400 At 6:12 PM -0500 6/20/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of what the READER finds the >most readable... based on THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color preferences, >THEIR screen resolution, etc etc. This battle was fought and lost with HTML web sites. Why do you think you'll have any more luck winning it with email? 99.9% of the people sending email really don't care. Actually, I'd put it stronger than that. When they make a document on the screen, they want it to appear the same way on the printer. When the fax it to someone, they want it to come out the same on the remote side. When the paper mail it to someone, they want it the same way on the other side. So not surprisingly they have this weird idea that the recipient should see the email the way they composed it. That's how it works in real life. That's how they want it to work on their computer. And don't talk to me about bits. Or dangerous content. Having your computer on the internet is dangerous. But we think it's worthwhile. You've made an apriori decision that HTML email isn't okay with you. Great. Don't accept it. But don't try and massively complicate everyone's life just because of your personal preference. You want to make everyone's machine keep track of who they have ever communicated with (On this machine? With this email program? With this email address? With this ISP?). You want to change the default behavior of 90% of the MUAs out there. You want to change the behavior of every MTA out there that receives email (or else every MUA has to add the code for tracking and bouncing). You want to explain to the users how to change these settings, and have *them* keep track of whether they have every sent mail to a particular user at this particular email address and from this particular address before, and then if not, have them change a setting that they don't even understand. And all to bring about a change that spammers can adapt to in less than a week. Because you know what? They didn't need HTML to sell 2 million Iraqi most-wanted cards in two weeks. They didn't need HTML to con people into flying to Nigeria and getting killed. And they certainly don't need it to sell penis expanders. Sure, it would be wonderful if there were some directory of what formats people would accept, and if you could easily keep track of whether you've sent mail to someone before, and they could easily keep track of whether they've received mail from you before. We abandoned those things when we abandoned X.400/X.500. This is good old SMTP/MIME email. No directories. No concept of identity. No concept of preferences. That is the environment we are working in. And futhermore. It has nothing to do with spam. Please take the topic somewhere appropriate. Your proposal doesn't amaze me. I've seen lots of people make the same complaint, myself included. What amazes me is that you think it's simple. Email is an END-USER technology, it's not some buried network protocol. NOTHING about it is simple. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 15:30:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14186 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LJU5Q26626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19To3p-0006vN-Jg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14179; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19To3o-0000jU-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19To3n-0000jR-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19To3l-0006tS-Nv; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19To3W-0006t5-BP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14174 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19To3V-0000jM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:45 -0400 Received: from mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov ([128.183.190.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19To3U-0000jJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:44 -0400 Received: from tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (tux.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.191.134]) by mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h5LJTeAV005174 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:40 -0400 Received: from tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5LJTfhv014780 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:41 -0400 Received: (from kodis@localhost) by tux.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h5LJTf4G014778 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:41 -0400 From: John Kodis To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Permission-based antispam-antivirus solutions Message-ID: <20030621192941.GA14667@tux.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:41 -0400 On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 06:50:36PM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > Programmers and sysadmins, and people who started using email before > MIME was introduced, tend to dislike HTML email. Other people see > the ability to use boldface and italics as normal features of any > text-editing environment (which they consider their MUA to be). Even so, HTML is the wrong tool for the job. A better approach is the text/enriched MIME Content-type described in RFC 1563 at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1563.html This provides all the formatting that someone composing a simple email message is likely to require (and then some), but without the bloat and security risks inherent in a full HTML rendering engine. It also produces mail messages can be rendered well by text-based email clients such as mutt, and which are still fairly legible even as raw text due to the lack of " " strings which seem to make up the bulk of many HTML email messages. > If you want FULL text-handling features, then you can send LaTeX or > Word (or whatever) documents as attachments (and thus enable > attachments) for those people you trust to send you that kind of material. Exactly right. This is simply a matter of using the correct tool for the job at hand. Unfortunately, restricting email content type seems unlikely to have any long-term impact on spam, as the spammers will simply adapt their behavior to whatever content type is most likely to get their message across. -- John Kodis Goddard Space Flight Center kodis@mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov Greenbelt, Maryland, USA Phone: 301-286-7376 Fax: 301-286-1771 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 15:48:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14482 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LJm4f28968 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ToLE-0007X9-9s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14476; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToLC-0000oF-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToLC-0000oC-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ToLA-0007VF-Lu; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ToKM-0007Uu-Py for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14444 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToKL-0000nl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:09 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToKK-0000ni-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:08 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471436 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Asrg] Do end users really use HTML? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:47:05 -0400 Frankly, I think the question is pointless. Regardless of the answer, we aren't going to change the default. Which raises the question of why I just spent three hours attempting to answer it. Oh well. Someone asked. The Sample Messages sent to wormalert@somewhere.com over the period of about 15 months. These are messages sent by non-technical (pretty much by definition) users who thought they were protecting their email from viruses. They put the wormalert address in their address book because someone forwarded a hoax to them, and they believed it. They sent mail to it because they were either sending email to everyone in their address book, replied to someone who did, or mistakenly thought the hoax said that they should cc/bcc the address every time. The main point is that these are *not* mailing list or technical messages. They tend to be forwarded jokes, conversations with relatives, and other end-user to end-user email. Needless to say, some of these messages are very private, so I'm not going to make the repository publicly available. These messages have been filtered to remove spam. Initially I did it by hand (I used to reply to the hoaxes, and also hand reply to people who ignored our automatic request to stop sending us email). For the past six months they've been filtered by Messagefire's spam filtering service. The false negative (missed spam) rate for Messagefire is about 0.2%. The Technique I wrote a perl program (included below) that parses the Eudora mailboxes that hold the mail. It looks at each message and checks to see if Eudora thought it was HTML (Eudora does some rather nasty munging of email, tossing multipart alternative and other message parts). The script is pretty generic, if you want to test it on a non-Eudora mailbox you'll want to change the line ending setting and have it use the Content-Type to check the type of the message instead of the tag. The script picks out HTML tags and counts them. Pretty simple. I kept feeding it my email having it print out the lines the tags were on until I had a rough idea of which tags were auto-generated, and which seemed to indicate manual generation. (Note that "manual" also includes "pasted from a web page".) I made a couple special cases. End tags aren't counted. No tag or tags preceding [a-z]+: is counted (e.g. formatting of forwarded messages). Font tags are counted only if they change the size or face of a previous font tag. These numbers may differ somewhat from my previous quick summary. The previous attempt was very quick and dirty with grep, and was prone to double-counting messages that contained forwarded messages. That inflated the number of HTML messages in the count. The Numbers 74,405 total messages 28,295 plain text (38%) 24,429 auto-generated html (32%) 21,681 hand-generated html (29%) 796 of the auto-generated html messages had attachments 3,750 of the hand-generated html messages had attachments (That's a little misleading, because I counted an img tag as hand-generated.) Raw Information Here are the tags with counts which I included in the "hand-generated" category, so long as they didn't violate any of the above exceptions. 13619 b 8067 font 5682 tr 5564 td 5518 table 5489 i 3541 strong 3428 img 3329 u 3320 tbody 1398 em 1026 center 248 ul 238 tt 202 li 164 h1 109 sup 80 code 72 h3 71 h2 70 map 67 small 55 area 48 bgsound 45 big 43 ol 38 base 35 h5 35 h4 34 nobr 30 h6 25 th 24 embed 22 link 13 param 12 caption 6 col 5 strike 4 fontfamily 3 noindex 3 excerpt 3 bigger 2 object 2 noscript 2 colgroup 2 blink 1 paraindent 1 noembed 1 label 1 headline 1 embossed 1 cite 1 byline 1 blackface And here, for what it's worth, is a count of the X-Mailer information, with version information stripped out. I've skipped anything with less than 10 entries. And finally, here's the script. #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; # Eudora does some odd mailbox munging. # If you are using this on something other than eudora mac, you'll want to change # the line ending here, and you'll want to change the check for attachments # (search for "Related" below) and the way I tell if something is html (). # $/ = "\r"; my ($inmsg, $inhdr, %mailer, %tags, %msg, $inhtml, %type, $cnt); my ($face, $size, $attachments, $msgs, $line); $inmsg = 0; while (<>) { ++$line; if (/^From /) { last if (++$cnt > 999999); if ($inmsg) { ++$msgs; if ($inhtml) { my ($hastag, $hasrel); foreach my $tag (keys %msg) { if ($tag eq 'Related') { ++$hasrel; ++$attachments; } else { ++$hastag; ++$tags{$tag}; } } if ($hastag) { if ($hasrel) { ++$type{handhtmlattach}; } else { ++$type{handhtml}; } } else { if ($hasrel) { ++$type{autohtmlattach}; } else { ++$type{autohtml}; } } } else { ++$type{text}; } } else { $inmsg = 1; } $inhdr = 1; $inhtml = 0; $face = $size = undef; %msg = (); } elsif (/^\s*$/) { $inhdr = 0; } else { if ($inhdr) { if (/^x-mailer:\s*(.*)/i) { my $mailer = lc($1); chomp $mailer; $mailer =~ s/\s*[\d,\/\(].*//; # nuke everything after a number ++$mailer{$mailer}; } } elsif (//) { $inhtml = 1; } if ($inhtml) { next if (/IncrediMail/); ++$msg{Related} if (/^Related:/); chomp; s/\0//g; # unicode s/[\r\n]/ /g; my $orig = $_; while (/<[^>]+>/) { my ($nface, $nsize); s/<([^>]+)>(.*)/\2/; my ($tag, $rest) = (lc($1), lc($2)); next if ($tag =~ /\@/); $tag =~ s/^[\s!]+//; # we only count font tags if they change if ($tag =~ /^font.*face="?([a-z]+)/) { $nface = $1; } if ($tag =~ /^font.*size="?([-\d]+)/) { $nsize = $1; } $tag =~ s/\s.*//; # weird tags next if ($tag =~ /\d/ && $tag !~ /^h\d$/); next if ($tag =~ /[^a-z\d]/); # probably spam or virus slipped through, don't count it if (grep(/^$tag$/, qw(iframe form input select option script textarea))) { $inmsg = 0; last; } # weird stuff next if (grep(/^$tag$/, qw(fwd left pm refcode))); next if ($tag =~ /^\s*$/); # tags we think are usually auto generated next if (grep(/^$tag$/, qw(span body div head html xmeta meta style doctype xbody dl dd dt marquee address clock dir comment spacer basefont bold xeta br a p blockquote hr xml pre title xmp defanged_meta))); # probably highlighting a mail field next if ($rest =~ /[a-z]+:/); if ($nface) { if ($face && $nface ne $face) { ++$msg{$tag}; #print "## $orig\n"; } } elsif ($nsize) { if ($size && $nsize != $size) { ++$msg{$tag}; #print "## $orig\n"; } } else { next if ($tag eq 'font'); #print "# $line: $tag\t$orig\n"; # Anything else we ignore if (grep(/^$tag$/, qw(b font h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6 strong sup tt big bgsound embed small li noscript area map ol code base nobr base caption th label col dir byline headline param strike cite excerpt paraindent blink object bigger blackface colgroup embossed fontfamily noembed noindex table tbody td tr u em i link img center ul))) { ++$msg{$tag}; } } $face = $nface if ($nface); $size = $nsize if ($nsize); } } } } print "Messages: $msgs\n"; print "HTML Attachments: $attachments\n"; print "Types:\n"; open(S, "|sort -rn"); foreach my $type (sort keys %type) { print S "$type{$type}\t$type\n"; } close(S); print "\nTags:\n"; open(S, "|sort -rn"); foreach my $tag (sort keys %tags) { print S "$tags{$tag}\t$tag\n"; } close(S); print "\nMailers\n"; open(S, "|sort -rn"); foreach my $mailer (sort keys %mailer) { print S "$mailer{$mailer}\t$mailer\n"; } close(S); -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 15:54:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14543 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LJs3K29709 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ToR1-0007j6-1G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14529; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToQz-0000pI-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToQy-0000pF-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ToQy-0007g5-Pf; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:54:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ToQi-0007fu-GN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14526 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToQh-0000pC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:43 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ToQg-0000p9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:42 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABT47520; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJB96150; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <001501c3382e$cfc06750$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:53:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Another patent should be added to the list of patents relevant to spam. This one may have implications for C/R related methods. US Patent: 6,246,996 "Computerized system for facilitating transactions between parties on the internet using e-mail" Granted: June 12, 2001 Based on initial filing on Sep. 16, 1994. See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3D6246996 The inventors are: Lee Stein, Einar Stefferud, Nathaniel Borenstein, and Marshall Rose... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 16:06:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14745 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LK6AF30439 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tock-0007us-8Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14740; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Toci-0000rV-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Toci-0000rS-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tocb-0007sz-0D; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Toc4-0007sd-A3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:05:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14734 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Toc2-0000rP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:05:26 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Toc1-0000rL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:05:25 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AAB76480152; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:06:15 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:10:03 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <25601ac0-bd36-44e9-9e60-52bfdfcbc71b> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list thread-index: AcM4Lw+nnOFsPJeiRuCieIL5pesexQAAPp5g From: "Peter Kay" To: , Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:06:01 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that's a reach on this patent. This one talks about facilitating transactions, maybe like a paypal system. It has virtually nothing to do with spam. I can see where you might stretch it to be c/r but I don't think it would be particularly helpful to this list. Maybe if you can point out which part of their claims or processes use C/R then it might make sense. I did a quick scan and did not see anything.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us] > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 9:54 AM > To: bob@wyman.us; asrg@ietf.org > Cc: 'Yakov Shafranovich' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list >=20 > Another patent should be added to the list of patents relevant to spam. > This one may have implications for C/R related methods. >=20 > US Patent: 6,246,996 "Computerized system for facilitating transactions > between parties on the internet using e-mail" Granted: June 12, 2001 > Based on initial filing on Sep. 16, 1994. > See: > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3D6246996 >=20 > The inventors are: Lee Stein, Einar Stefferud, Nathaniel Borenstein, and > Marshall Rose... >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 16:35:31 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15054 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LKZ4F00649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tp4i-0000AO-H9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15029; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp4g-0000vg-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:02 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp4g-0000vd-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tp4f-00008W-4C; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tp46-00008D-QZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15006 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp44-0000vW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:25 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp44-0000vT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:24 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr9.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id PGW50966; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJB98849; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Peter Kay'" , Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <001701c33834$83bad420$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:34:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Peter Kay wrote: > I think that's a reach on this patent. This one talks about > facilitating transactions, maybe like a paypal system. It=20 > has virtually nothing to do with spam. I agree that it is a bit of a stretch, however, even though it is not written as an "anti-spam" patent, it still incorporates a process of "challenge and response" via email messages that somewhat resembles the method used in C/R systems which are specifically intended to prevent spam.=20 One might argue that sending email messages is a form of "transaction."=20 Or, it might be that you would infringe on this patent if you combined a C/R system with one of the "pay to send" or "postage stamp" systems that have been proposed elsewhere. In that case, the transaction would be paying for the postage. It is also possible that one might argue that since this process of "challenge and response" (although not called that in this patent) had been incorporated into a patent application whose predecessor was filed as long ago as 1994, that establishes that the method of C/R was "obvious" to one skilled in the art by the time that later C/R related patent applications were being filed five, six or more years later. Also, at least one of the inventors on this patent has claimed that he believes it *may* be relevant to spam... bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 16:37:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15092 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LKb3W01521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:37:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tp6c-0000OS-SB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:37:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15080; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp6a-0000wE-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:37:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp6a-0000wB-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:37:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tp6b-0000HP-BT; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tp5q-0000FV-OP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15074 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp5o-0000w2-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:12 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tp5o-0000vz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:12 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2471513; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:36:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] spam from the "spamfree" message board Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:30:11 -0400 Some folks are simply amazing. At 11:02 AM -0700 6/21/03, WSpringfield wrote: >Return-Path: >Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT) >From: WSpringfield >Subject: Spamfree Message Board >To: webmaster@somewhere.com > >webmaster@somewhere.com > >I found a link to your site on the asrg digest and >wanted to invite your group to make contributions to a >new anti-spam message board which can be found at; > >http://b5.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=spamfree He finds a link to my web site on ASRG, and therefore thinks it's okay to send spam to the webmaster at the site? The mind boggles. Can anyone suggest why I shouldn't report this to Yahoo as spam? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 16:59:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15327 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LKx3003228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpRv-0000pz-Ko for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15316; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpRt-0000zg-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpRs-0000zd-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpRs-0000o6-Td; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpR4-0000ni-QL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15309 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpR2-0000zU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:08 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpR2-0000zR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:08 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr9.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id PGW51972; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJC00389; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:06 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] "more readable" Message-ID: <001801c33837$d748e020$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:58:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gordon Peterson wrote: > I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of=20 > what the READER finds the most readable... based on=20 > THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color preferences,=20 > THEIR screen resolution, etc etc. Argh... I first had this debate over 20 years ago... It is one of the classic issues in email... I really don't want to drag through all the detail which would involve endless quotes from Aristotle on the subject of rhetoric, etc... However, in "classic" communication systems, the *speaker* is responsible for constructing communications in a form which is most likely to be understood by his audience. Electronic communications adds a twist to things, very different from traditional forms of communications, in that the reader is able to reformat the "utterance" upon receipt. Nonetheless, the speaker still has responsibility to do the best he can in forming his utterances... There is a long set of arguments that would say that properly formatted HTML would be the best form in which to construct a message since the recipient of the message can alter the presentation to adjust to his own preferences. Thus, a message should be formatted with "" tags (not "" tags) and the reader will choose how he prefers to see emphasis rendered in response to the speakers indication that emphasis be shown. If all messages are sent in ASCII, then the reader has less control over the message content than if messages are sent in HTML. It should not be forgotten that the reader has the option, given appropriate software, to take an HTML message and have it formatted as pure ASCII... Lynx based HTML browsers have been doing that for a very long time... I think the real issue here is not the sending of HTML, but rather, the fact that most reader's email systems can't be trusted to display HTML without risks. We wouldn't be hearing these objections if more readers had systems that had the flexibility of web bugs, were better protected against HTML born viruses, etc. It isn't HTML that is the problem, it is the software that reads it. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 17:04:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15646 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LL43i04553 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpWl-0001BM-M1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15632; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpWj-00014W-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpWi-00014T-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpWj-00019U-HY; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpWe-00019J-OO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15629 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpWc-00014Q-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:54 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpWc-00014N-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:54 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXI47016; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJC00720; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Kee Hinckley'" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] "more readable" Message-ID: <001901c33838$a505f160$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:04:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > easily keep track of whether they've received mail from > you before. We abandoned those things when we abandoned > X.400/X.500. This is good old SMTP/MIME email. No > directories. No concept of identity. No concept of preferences. I think you do not understand X.400. While X.500 had much to do with "identity," there was nothing in X.400 concerning identity, preferences, etc. And, the issues being discussed in this forum had nothing to do with any reason why X.400 is not successful today. (Note: I was part of the definition of and first commercial implementation of X.400, etc... Don't get me started.) bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 17:21:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15848 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LLL9506377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpnJ-0001em-4O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15824; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpnG-00017W-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpnG-00017T-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpnA-0001cu-WB; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpmS-0001cd-7n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:20:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15801 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpmP-00017Q-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:20:13 -0400 Received: from web14602.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.224.82]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpmP-00017N-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:20:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20030621212013.95085.qmail@web14602.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [32.101.253.244] by web14602.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:20:13 PDT From: WSpringfield To: Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] Re: spam from the "spamfree" message board Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Kee Hinckley Your message has been received and I apologize for intruding with my email message. I saw the advertisement at the bottom of your message and assumed you were open to contact through the link provided. My intention was to open additional dialog with others who share concerns about receiving unsolicited emails. It seems to me that individual contact between users, particularly those who advertise, would be a part of the commercial nature of the information tool we have here. Again, I intended no offense and withdraw my offer to visit and participate in our new board. WSpringfield PS; To the asrg webmaster, you may cancel my request to receive the digest if my actions were outside of the bounds of your group. --- Kee Hinckley wrote: > Some folks are simply amazing. > > At 11:02 AM -0700 6/21/03, WSpringfield wrote: > >Return-Path: > >Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:02:50 -0700 (PDT) > >From: WSpringfield > >Subject: Spamfree Message Board > >To: webmaster@somewhere.com > > > >webmaster@somewhere.com > > > >I found a link to your site on the asrg digest and > >wanted to invite your group to make contributions > to a > >new anti-spam message board which can be found at; > > > >http://b5.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=spamfree > > He finds a link to my web site on ASRG, and > therefore thinks it's > okay to send spam to the webmaster at the site? > > The mind boggles. Can anyone suggest why I > shouldn't report this to > Yahoo as spam? > -- > Kee Hinckley > http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam > Service for your POP Account > http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on > Technology and Society > > I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are > so unwilling to accept > responsibility for their own actions, or that they > are so eager to regulate > everyone else's. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 17:32:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15975 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5LLW3g07194 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:32:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tpxr-0001rx-LR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:32:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15968; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tpxp-00019F-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:32:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tpxo-00019C-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:32:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tpxp-0001q5-6j; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TpxJ-0001pt-WF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:31:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15965 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpxH-000199-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:31:27 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TpxG-000196-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:31:26 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5LLVO0g019035 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:31:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306212131.h5LLVO0g019035@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] "more readable" References: <001801c33837$d748e020$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:31:24 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Bob Wyman" > ... > I think the real issue here is not the sending of HTML, but > rather, the fact that most reader's email systems can't be trusted to > display HTML without risks. We wouldn't be hearing these objections if > more readers had systems that had the flexibility of web bugs, were > better protected against HTML born viruses, etc. It isn't HTML that is > the problem, it is the software that reads it. That's true of privacy and security complaints but not spam. A safe and sane HTML-enabled MUA that doesn't dereference URLs and never executes scripts without the explict informed opinion of a human user would be an irritant for spam filtering. Spam filtering must deal with and , just to name two things that are easy to handle and not mentioning other things that are more hassle since there's no reason instruct the slower spammers reading this mailing list. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 21:29:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20052 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M1TGP23159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TtfP-00061S-Um for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20025; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TtfM-0001pi-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TtfL-0001pf-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TtfA-0005za-U8; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:29:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ttec-0005zM-IL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:28:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20020 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:28:23 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TteZ-0001pb-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:28:23 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TteY-0001pY-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:28:22 -0400 Received: (cpmta 3572 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2003 18:28:20 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2003 18:28:20 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 01:28:20 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:27:26 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:54:37 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] "more readable" To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:54:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: >At 6:12 PM -0500 6/20/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >>I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of what the READER finds the >>most readable... based on THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color preferences, >>THEIR screen resolution, etc etc. > >This battle was fought and lost with HTML web sites. Why do you >think you'll have any more luck winning it with email? Well, ONE difference is that a Web site is for the most part a public posting, which people have the right to visit or not visit as they choose, but at THEIR option. The Web site is designed (and paid for) by the person posting it. A Web site is normally made available without knowing in advance who might or might not someday come to view it. E-mail, on the other hand, uses an inbox (of limited size, thus at least for some a 'scarce resrouce') paid for by the recipient. While made available by the recipient for the convenience of others, the sender of the E-mail usually knows (of, at least) the people who will be receiving the mail. There is generally a more direct relationship (other than in spamming, of course). It's really like the difference between announcing an open public meeting somewhere to make a presentation, versus knocking on the door to someone's home to make the presentation at their house. If you're making the presentation to them personally, you should normally expect to go to greater pains to respect the wishes of the people who are personally giving you their time and attention. >99.9% of the people sending email really don't care. Actually, I'd >put it stronger than that. When they make a document on the screen, >they want it to appear the same way on the printer. HTML is not, and has never been, a precise or deterministic page layout language. Postscript, TeX, and other schemes are [FAR!] better at that. While obviously I can't prevent people from confusing that issue, I also don't take responsibility for their trying to turn HTML into something it's really not. And I don't have to allow them to waste _my_ resources in their associated, [foolhardy!] attempt. The issue, anyhow, isn't really whether people should or shouldn't use HTML-burdened E-mail... obviously, some people can (and do) send anything they could possibly want in their outgoing E-mails. The issue before THIS group is whether we might encourage ISPs to provide filtering options to their subscribers which return control of the subscribers' E-mail inboxes to the subscribers, or if we leave them to continue to be victimized by spammers, fraudsters, and other abusers. My observation is that spammers as a class are far more likely to use (and abuse) the various oddball things in HTML in their attempts to deceive, defraud, mislead, and confuse their victims. Since the MOST universal (and safest!) form of E-mail is plain ASCII text, it just makes sense to (AT LEAST FOR AN INITIAL CONTACT) to employ that cross-platform, everyone-can-read-it style. >When the fax it >to someone, they want it to come out the same on the remote side. Fax by its nature is an IMAGE. HTML is NOT an image, nor is it a page description language (no matter how strongly some of its users try to make it that). >When the paper mail it to someone, they want it the same way on the >other side. So not surprisingly they have this weird idea that the >recipient should see the email the way they composed it. That's how >it works in real life. That's how they want it to work on their >computer. They can do that using Adobe Acrobat, Word, TeX, and various other kinds of page composition languages. HTML is NOT like any of those. But in ANY case, there is a quantum, crucial difference about E-mail than about Web sites or E-publishing... E-mail is often between just TWO people, and it's not ONLY about what just ONE of them wants. To be useful, it must be useful and correspond with the needs and wishes of BOTH of those parties. >And don't talk to me about bits. Or dangerous content. Having your >computer on the internet is dangerous. You do NOT get viruses/worms/trojans from plain ASCII text E-mails. HTML and/or attachments are crucial components to virtually EVERY type of malicious E-mails (i.e. not just 'fraudulent' like the Nigerian scams). Agreed that there might be other firewall-type attacks, but virtually every type of malicious code which arrives by E-mail comes in either HTML-burdened or attachment-carrying E-mail. Restricting who can send you that to a subset of your correspondents will result in a probably-similar reduction in your vulnerability to attacks arriving that way. We can probably agree that protecting your computer from malicious code isn't the focus of this group; but it is a nice side benefit that the SAME mechanism which will help make the spam situation so much better will also help the malicious-code-attack problem too. >You've made an apriori decision that HTML email isn't okay with you. I'm willing to accept it from SOME senders, those who use it responsibly and who I trust to not abuse it (and whose transmissions are unlikely to overflow my Inbox). >Great. Don't accept it. But don't try and massively complicate >everyone's life just because of your personal preference. The goal is not to "massively complicate" anybody's life, but we ARE trying to solve some problems here, and solving them IS GOING TO MEAN changing at least some characteristics of the status quo. >You want >to make everyone's machine keep track of who they have ever >communicated with (On this machine? With this email program? With >this email address? With this ISP?). That is not a key part of my proposal, although if it's only just a matter of destination/origin name pairs I would suggest that "keeping track" of every correspondent you've exchanged mail with represents a terribly small database by today's standards (and that doesn't necessarily need to be on your own machine, it could well be at your ISP or domain provider). > You want to change the default behavior of 90% of the MUAs out there. I think that just about everything we have been proposing represents at least SOME kind of change, AT LEAST at the ISP level. One big advantage of what I propose is that it can be implemented at a *single* ISP (indeed, even at a single *recipient*) and virtually immediately yield a very substantial improvmement. >You want to change the >behavior of every MTA out there that receives email (or else every >MUA has to add the code for tracking and bouncing). You want to >explain to the users how to change these settings, and have *them* >keep track of whether they have every sent mail to a particular user >at this particular email address and from this particular address >before, and then if not, have them change a setting that they don't >even understand. Senders don't *need* to change anything, depending on how the system is implemented and how the recipient sets things up. It's possible to handle *everything* that's truly required from the sender's end. (Indeed, you don't even HAVE to involve the ISP, although the Net-wide costs are less if you truncate the unwanted mail earlier in the transmission path). >And all to bring about a change that spammers can adapt to in less >than a week. Changing to plain ASCII text E-mail will get the mail past THAT level, but it will (again) deny them the great majority of their most cherished tricks, AND make their stuff more readily filtered by content filters. It makes it harder for spammers to confuse, deceive, and trick their victims. So even when spammers "adapt", they _never_ get back to what they had before. >Because you know what? They didn't need HTML to sell 2 >million Iraqi most-wanted cards in two weeks. They didn't need HTML >to con people into flying to Nigeria and getting killed. And they >certainly don't need it to sell penis expanders. No, and you know what? Any SINGLE person can send any SINGLE fraudulent offer to ANYBODY for ANY reason, and there's damned little ANYBODY can do to prevent that. (Hell, your brother-in-law could convince you to buy his lemon of a used car, too). There's no substitute, ultimately, for being intelligent and not getting screwed in a bad deal. What we're trying to do is to put a crimp in their gears, and to make life more difficult for spammers and abusers. As for those who seem so determined to prevent that from happening... one has to wonder what their true agenda actually is, and whose side they're on. >Sure, it would be wonderful if there were some directory of what >formats people would accept, Spammers should NOT be able to just look that up, I think. It makes their life easier, and there's little reason for us to do that for them. :-) >and if you could easily keep track of >whether you've sent mail to someone before, and they could easily >keep track of whether they've received mail from you before. Again, those things don't really have to be done, either. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 23:03:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21468 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M338B30292 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tv8G-0007sV-Fg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21440; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tv8C-0002Cp-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tv8C-0002Cm-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tv89-0007qd-Bd; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tv7b-0007qR-5d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:02:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21437 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tv7X-0002Ci-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:02:23 -0400 Received: from 000-258-542.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.249.225] helo=68.27.249.225 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tv7U-0002CX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:02:21 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030621230124.00bb1938@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:01:25 -0400 At 06:27 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >At 03:00 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > > >> > >>Plain ASCII text will continue to be delivered as before. > >>[..] Gordon, You have mentioned before that even if only ASCII spam is being delivered that will reduce the overall bandwidth consumer. HOWEVER, that will not reduce the total number of spam items in someone's inbox. Another words, while it will accomplish something for the ISPs, it will have no effect on the end-users - the same number of spam items would have to be deleted from inboxes everyday. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 23:05:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21529 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:05:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M353w31024 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:05:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TvA7-00083Z-9E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:05:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21520; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TvA3-0002Dv-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TvA2-0002Ds-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TvA5-0007xz-JN; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tv9Q-0007xb-Uz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21500 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tv9N-0002Dd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:17 -0400 Received: from 000-258-542.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.249.225] helo=68.27.249.225 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tv9L-0002DO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:04:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030621230338.00ba6928@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Jon Kyme" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: "ASRG" In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:03:57 -0400 At 10:43 AM 6/21/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > Foreign ISPs, allowing for spam are also > > a > > problem. > >"Foreign"? What does that mean? Offshore, not in countries willing to cooperate - ie. China. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 23:52:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22143 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M3q6W02412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tvte-0000cp-J7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22125; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tvtb-0002L8-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tvtb-0002L5-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TvtZ-0000av-D5; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tvsg-0000ZM-IQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:51:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22100 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:51:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tvsd-0002Kl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:51:03 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tvsc-0002Ki-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:51:03 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip61-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.61]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BC8B36BBA for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:45:39 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Message-ID: <20030621234539.A6723@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com>; from bzs@world.std.com on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 07:33:49PM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:45:39 -0400 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 07:33:49PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote > We've seen various blacklists. I consider them a mostly bad idea, > perhaps of some use to individuals, but it's something we should > all be familiar with. > > Some of the more notorious black lists actively scanned the net > with software for systems which fit their notion of "open relays" > and would add these to the net as a hazard. > > Now, would it be possible to scan similarly for systems infected > with Jeem or one of the other spammer slave bugs? This would have to be at least partially a legislative solution. Let's just say that anybody scanning large portions of the net raises eyebrows, and is reason for termination at many ISPs. > What would we do with that information? > > That's probably not necessary to answer, unless someone doubts > anything good could be done. But, for example, inform the owner, > an ISP might quarantine or mail rate-limit a known infected computer > until it's fixed, block it entirely (from mail, from everything), etc. From postings I've seen on nanae (news.admin.net-abuse.email), when some large outfits are provided with headers of virus emails day-in, day-out from certain IP addresses, they don't seem very active in getting the customer off the net. > Anyhow, this all starts with whether it's possible to write a piece > of software which begins to scan the net for infected systems? The problem so far is that people take virus/trojan compromises too lightly. That's because the compromises go out of their way not to be noticed. The trojan sends out a bunch of spams from your machine while you're sleeping. The typical end-user reaction is "so what?". Maybe governments need to do a "Hatch-job" (senator from Utah?). Notice that almost all viruses/trojans are "intelligent parasites" that don't eat up enough resources to kill their hosts. What we need is for governments to authorize law-enforcement agencies to release viruses ("Killer-V's") that low-level unformat harddrives, and flash BIOSes with garbage for good measure so that you can't just slap in the install CD and have the same crap reconnected to the net 3 hours later. The people whose machines are susceptable to viruses/worms which set up zombies for spammers and DDOS attacks will get knocked off the net. The people whose machines are immune to the killer virus will tend to also be immune to being used as zombies for spammers and DDOS attacks. And the net will be a much better place for those that remain. > Maybe we should also issue an RFC that simply says that the days of > computer, including personal and desktop computer, operating systems > being vulnerable to viruses (within some problem definition) should > have been over years ago via widely distributed and well-known > techniques utilized in highly successful and comparable operating > systems software. An RFC means nothing if it isn't enforced. You almost need an "internet driver's licence" or a "Killer-V" to get the problems off the net. > For the love of money, XP and Windows/ME (and all earlier MS windows) > are both vulnerable to Jeem, sobig.a, and Proxy-Guzu, some of the more > cited viruses used in this sort of spamming. > > And, in all cases, according to Symantec's database: > > Systems Not Affected: Macintosh, OS/2, UNIX, Linux I've used DOS and OS/2 and linux and Windows. As a current linux user, I know its warts as well as its beauty. I think that any sufficiently powerful server OS in the hands of a newbie is asking for trouble. - Windows' problems stem from its origins as a LAN-based system. The idea was "wouldn't it be cool if the admin could send an executable email that would cause subscribers' machines to auto-update on reading the email?". That is a godsend for admins running an office LAN. Connect that same OS to the internet, and you have major security problems. - linux is a unix-clone. Until approximately version 6.2, Redhat came with a "workstation" install that had sendmail wide-open for relay, and portmap and a whole bunch of other services listening to the internet. It was only a few years ago that Lion and Ramen were driving linux users nuts. And don't get me started on wu-ftp. At first, it didn't matter. The linux install was so damn hard that if you were cluefull enough to get it installed and connected to the net, you were cluefull enough to do it right. Even today, the first thing I do with a fresh linux install is "netstat -tupan" and see what services I have to shut down. Oh yeah, I do this *BEFORE* the first connection to the net. It was only whem the install was automated to the point where the clueless could point-and-click their way through it, that the problems became obvious. - The MAC's original niche was desktop publishing. There wasn't a need to have scripted emails auto-update the system, or for the machine to come with server daemons running under the default install. For a newbie whose major concern is finding the "any key", the MAC is probably the most secure choice. The problem is due in large part to newbies. 20 years ago, only sysadmins who knew what they were doing ran machines connected to the internet 24X7. Today, any fool can do so... and many do. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 21 23:59:30 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22299 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:59:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M3x3r03173 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tw0N-0000p6-9f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:59:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22288; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tw0K-0002O9-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:59:00 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tw0K-0002O6-00; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:59:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tw0K-0000m4-W9; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TvzZ-0000ls-2O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:58:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22277 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TvzW-0002Nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:58:10 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TvzW-0002Nw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:58:10 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip61-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.61]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 324D0369C3 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:52 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Message-ID: <20030621235252.B6723@m433> References: <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620111843.00ba87d0@std5.imagineis.com> <16115.33221.317731.760532@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <16115.33221.317731.760532@world.std.com>; from bzs@world.std.com on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:51:01PM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:52:52 -0400 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:51:01PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote > Yes, replacing all MS windows operating systems on all computers > attached to the net with either Unix or a modern unix-like operating > system (Linux, Mac OSX) would eliminate about 99% of the spam and put > virtually all spammers out of business instantly. And my boss thinks I'm a linux zealot, sheesh. The newbies *WILL* find ways to screw up. Or don't you remember what happened when some idiots set up every school in South Korea with sendmail wide-open for relaying ? And if Windows disappears, the dumbkopf who wrote AnalogX will probably port it to linux with the same brain-dead wide-open defaults. It's not the OS behind the computer, it's the nut behind the keyboard that's the problem. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 00:29:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22819 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M4TCU06223 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TwTY-0001cI-2I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22806; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TwTV-0002XW-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TwTP-0002XT-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TwTN-0001ZC-4L; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TwSm-0001Z0-VH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:28:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22800 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TwSk-0002XP-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:28:22 -0400 Received: from 000-258-542.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.249.225] helo=68.27.249.225 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TwSY-0002XL-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:28:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622002712.00bcbc80@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, Kee Hinckley From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] "more readable" Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:27:13 -0400 At 08:54 PM 6/21/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > >At 6:12 PM -0500 6/20/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of what the READER > finds the > >>most readable... based on THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color > preferences, > >>THEIR screen resolution, etc etc. > > > >This battle was fought and lost with HTML web sites. Why do you > >think you'll have any more luck winning it with email? >[..] > > >And all to bring about a change that spammers can adapt to in less > >than a week. > >Changing to plain ASCII text E-mail will get the mail past THAT level, but it >will (again) deny them the great majority of their most cherished tricks, AND >make their stuff more readily filtered by content filters. It makes it >harder >for spammers to confuse, deceive, and trick their victims. So even when >spammers "adapt", they _never_ get back to what they had before. Keep in mind that while you reducing these things, nevertheless in the end of the day there is still the same number of emails in the user's email inbox. > [..] What we're trying to do is to put a crimp in >their gears, and to make life more difficult for spammers and abusers. > >As for those who seem so determined to prevent that from happening... one >has to >wonder what their true agenda actually is, and whose side they're on. >[..] There is no reason to get personal, we are all fighting the same enemy and are all on the same side. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 00:45:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23066 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M4j9D08506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Twiz-0002D7-FG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23047; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Twiw-0002am-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Twir-0002aj-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Twiq-00026s-Oj; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:45:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TwiL-00026U-Ha for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:44:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23042 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TwiI-0002ad-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:44:27 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Twi8-0002aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:44:16 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip61-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.61]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A00A36BC1 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:38:52 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail Message-ID: <20030622003852.A6973@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221022.00b6acf8@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112525.00bbc198@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112525.00bbc198@std5.imagineis.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:29:18AM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:38:52 -0400 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:29:18AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > I believe someone on the list has stated that spammers are monitoring > the working group and in the last 60 days there have been significant > changes in spam based on our discussions here. When I mean that they > will switch to plain ASCII, I was not talking about on the order of > years, rather DAYS or WEEKS. By the time you can implement base64 > blocking, spammers will already be using plain ASCII. All you will > do is irritate lots of users. > > > 1) Their spam will be less effective; > > How? Let me count the ways... 1) Link obfuscation. from a spam I received today... =======================================================

Dear eBay member,
As part of our continuing commitment to protect your account and to reduce the instance of fraud on our website, we are undertaking a period review of our member accounts.
You are requested to visit our site by following the link given below
******************* ******************* http://arribba.cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?UpdateInformationConfirm&bpuser=1

Please fill in the required information.
======================================================= The IP address is somewhere in Romania. The HTML makes it look like you're going to "ebay.com", which you're not. I don't have an ebay account, so it's even more obvious. 2) Web bugs. Confirm that emails are being read *WITHOUT THE END-USER CLICKING ON ANYTHING*. Nuff said. 3) Obfuscated javascript that attempts to hide from end-users what's actually happening. Nobody but a spammer or other bad guy needs this "functionality". 4) I've seen spam that attempts to load F**kwave/Slash graphics from a website. And if you don't have the uptodate version, it also attempts to *INSTALL THE LATEST VERSION*. Just what a dialup user needs; NOT! 5) You can open email from strangers without first glancing over your shoulder to check whether your (female) boss is in the general vicinity. 6) "IFRAME" is an HTML "feature". It is used by KLEZ to *AUTO-EXECUTE* when a victim *MERELY OPENS AN EMAIL*. They do *NOT* have to click on an attachment. Guess which OS and which mailreader. Yes, this was fixed in a patch, but the patch doesn't seem to have been universally applied. > > 2) their spam will be more easily dealt with by content filters; > > How? Spammers send HTML encoded mail on the assumption that the MUAs > are able to parse it. 7) And they also break up "key" words with coments, like so, to prevent SpamAssasin from parsing them. But HTML-enabled MUAs ignore the comments, and serve up the "dirty" words that filters miss with this obfuscation. All of the above "functionality" is *NOT* available in text-only email. Sob, sob, boo hoo. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 02:58:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06581 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M6wG229185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tynn-0007ae-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06574; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tynj-0003F3-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tynd-0003F0-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TynZ-0007Xa-HD; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tymi-0007Wq-QU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:57:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06565 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:56:51 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TymP-0003Er-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:56:50 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TymF-0003Eo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:56:39 -0400 Received: (cpmta 25907 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2003 23:56:14 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2003 23:56:14 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 06:56:14 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:54:55 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:22:06 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030621230124.00bb1938@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:22:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>>Plain ASCII text will continue to be delivered as before. >>You have mentioned before that even if only ASCII spam is being delivered >that will reduce the overall bandwidth consumer. HOWEVER, that will not >reduce the total number of spam items in someone's inbox. First, people's inbox capacity is never (in my experience) limited by number of messages... always by number of megabytes. Second, if spammers are unable to pull a lot of the tricks and deceptions that they do at present, I believe that a lot of spam that presently "works" economically will no longer be viable. >Another words, while it will accomplish something for the ISPs, it will have no effect on the end-users - I *absolutely* disagree: 1) Their ISP-provided inboxes will not overflow so readily due to unwanted spam; 2) Usually the "narrow" pipe in terms of bandwidth is coming into the end-user, and reducing that volume will mean that wasted download time (especially for dialup customers) will be greatly reduced. 3) Many of the most annoying tricks and deceptions used by spammers won't be usable anymore... meaning that the spam that DOES arrive will be less likely to confuse or trap the unwary. (Also, many of those deceptions and obfuscations attempt to make it harder to find the right place to complain to about the spam... so user complaints are more likely to be more effective) 4) The residual spam which still arrives will be more readily filtered by content filters (perhaps at the end-user's system). Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 03:18:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06837 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M7I9631467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tz73-0008BS-5G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06831; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tz70-0003Jm-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tz6v-0003Jj-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tz6v-00085D-31; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tz64-00084z-5n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:17:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06828 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:17:07 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tz61-0003Je-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:17:06 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tz5r-0003JY-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:16:55 -0400 Received: (cpmta 15575 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 00:16:35 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 00:16:35 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 07:16:35 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:14:55 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:42:06 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] "more readable" To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, Kee Hinckley Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622001058.00bb4eb8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:42:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Changing to plain ASCII text E-mail will get the mail past THAT level, but it >>will (again) deny them the great majority of their most cherished tricks, AND >>make their stuff more readily filtered by content filters. It makes it >>harder >>for spammers to confuse, deceive, and trick their victims. So even when >>spammers "adapt", they _never_ get back to what they had before. >Keep in mind that while you reducing these things, nevertheless in the end >of the day there is still the same number of emails in the user's email inbox. Again, I disagree. First, the fact that spammers wouldn't be able to do "text as image" (etc) means that content scanners can be significantly more effective, catching a (much) higher percentage of spam. Second, the fact that the resulting spam is less likely to produce "success" for the spammers probably will make a lot of today's spam no longer interesting for the spammers economically. I expect that to reduce the quantity of spams (or at least reduce the growth rate!), too. >> [..] What we're trying to do is to put a crimp in >>their gears, and to make life more difficult for spammers and abusers. >> >>As for those who seem so determined to prevent that from happening... one >>has to >>wonder what their true agenda actually is, and whose side they're on. >There is no reason to get personal, I didn't name any names. But if the shoe fits.... > ...we are all fighting the same enemy and are all on the same side. If EVERYONE was on the same side, spam wouldn't be the problem it is. It's already been pointed out that spammers seem to be among the participants (lurking, at least) here... it's not a terribly hard leap to imagine that not all of them are passive lurkers, and that some of them are trying to create confusion, discord, and to try to block or delay any kind of positive outcome that would seriously impact their business. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 03:50:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07160 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M7oFC01750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tzc7-0000S9-QZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07152; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tzc5-0003P4-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tzbz-0003P1-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tzbt-0000Ly-85; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Tzar-0000LZ-6z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:49:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07148 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:48:55 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tzao-0003Ov-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:48:54 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Tzae-0003Oq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:48:44 -0400 Received: (cpmta 1168 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 00:48:34 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 00:48:34 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 07:48:34 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 02:47:34 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:14:46 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] "more readable" To: , , In-Reply-To: <001801c33837$d748e020$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 03:14:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of >> what the READER finds the most readable... based on >> THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color preferences, >> THEIR screen resolution, etc etc. > Argh... I first had this debate over 20 years ago... It is one >of the classic issues in email... I really don't want to drag through >all the detail which would involve endless quotes from Aristotle on the >subject of rhetoric, etc... However, in "classic" communication systems, >the *speaker* is responsible for constructing communications in a form >which is most likely to be understood by his audience. Electronic >communications adds a twist to things, very different from traditional >forms of communications, in that the reader is able to reformat the >"utterance" upon receipt. Nonetheless, the speaker still has >responsibility to do the best he can in forming his utterances... And the reader or listener, if they don't like the form that the speaker has chosen to impose, has the absolute right to walk off or to refuse to listen. Or, in the case of E-mail, to refuse delivery of E-mail that the recipient judges to be excessively bulky or otherwise unwanted, for any reason that makes sense to the recipient. A successful speaker, who presumably wishes to be heard by as many people as possible, thus ought to accommodate as many recipients as they can. > There is a long set of arguments that would say that properly >formatted HTML would be the best form in which to construct a message And if the recipient agrees, they'll probably set their permissions list to allow that style of sending. :-) In my case (at present at least) my incoming mail filtering system simply (among its many other functions!) eliminates all HTML-burdened alternative attachments, and if the main body of the message is HTML-burdened then the body is either truncated entirely or else the great majority of the HTML tags are entirely removed. [I'm not proposing that as a more general solution for Net-wide adoption, but it has been working fairly well for me here.] > >since the recipient of the message can alter the presentation to adjust >to his own preferences. Thus, a message should be formatted with "" tags (not "" tags) and the reader will choose how he prefers to see emphasis rendered in response to the speakers indication that emphasis be shown. If all messages are sent in ASCII, then the reader has less control over the message content than if messages are sent in HTML. Again if the reader agrees with you (and finds that the extra bulk and risk of HTML is less annoying than the utility to them) then they'll have the option of allowing HTML to come through, from anyone they trust and/or even 'everybody'. The choice OUGHT to belong to the person paying the bill, which in this case is usually the RECIPIENT rather than the sender. > It should not be forgotten that the reader has the option, given appropriate software, to take an HTML message and have it formatted as pure ASCII... Lynx based HTML browsers have been doing that for a very long time... Yes, although it first must be delivered to them (including occupying space for however long in the user's ISP-provided Inbox, and consuming bandwidth of their perhaps-dialup connection (particularly annoying for overseas users who often pay by the minute for their local calls to connect to their ISP... so it's not only just TIME, it's also REAL MONEY too). > I think the real issue here is not the sending of HTML, but rather, the fact that most reader's email systems can't be trusted to display HTML without risks. You're ignoring the extra cost (bulk/bandwidth) all the way along the line, too. Typically HTML-burdened E-mail is 3-5x larger than the same exact message content in plain ASCII text. Another BIG issue for some users is how long they can be away from home (cruise/vacation/convention/business trip/camping/whatever) and letting their E-mail accumulate in their POP3 server(s) before their Inbox overflows and mail starts getting bounced. > We wouldn't be hearing these objections if more readers had systems that had the flexibility of web bugs, were better protected against HTML born viruses, etc. It isn't HTML that is the problem, it is the software that reads it. No, in MANY cases it is INDEED the HTML. But in any case, the users simply need an EASY way to express their CHOICE of whether they wish to accept HTML-burdened E-mail (or E-mails bearing attachments) from senders from whom they have CHOSEN not to accept (or at least NOT chosen to accept) E-mails employing those features. Once the option is available to them, we'd find out soon enough what percentages of users choose to keep their acceptance permission list 'how' open, and what impact that actually has in real life on the spams (/viruses/worms/trojans) arriving in their Inbox, and (eventually) on spams overall, Net-wide. In any case, it's a cheap and quick thing to try, and is likely to take a substantial chunk out of spams, viruses, worms, and trojans. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 05:28:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08281 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5M9SGg15020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U18y-0003uB-9G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08264; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U18u-0003gi-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U18p-0003gf-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U18j-0003r9-8L; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U18A-0003qw-KP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:27:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08256 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U17s-0003gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:27:08 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U17h-0003gL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:26:57 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19U17L-0005W0-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:26:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030621230338.00ba6928@std5.imagineis.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:26:35 +0100 > At 10:43 AM 6/21/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > > > Foreign ISPs, allowing for spam are also > > > a > > > problem. > > > >"Foreign"? What does that mean? > > Offshore, not in countries willing to cooperate - ie. China. > > > For what it's worth, most spam I receive is advertising products and services which seem to be based in the USA. So yes, given that I'm domiciled in the UK, I'd call that "Foreign". -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 07:41:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10046 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MBfEv26679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U3De-0006wE-D6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10042; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U3Dd-00044d-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U3DY-00044a-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U3DQ-0006uJ-Gb; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:41:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U3DJ-0006u8-9R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:40:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10033 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U3D3-00044W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:40:37 -0400 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U3Cs-00044T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:40:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 10170 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2003 11:39:35 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail Message-ID: <20030622113935.GN18151@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DfnuYBTqzt7sVGu3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:39:35 +0200 --DfnuYBTqzt7sVGu3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-06-19 18:31:58 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > There are many clear indicators that large numbers of people like to bo= th send=20 > > and receive HTML formatted messages.=20 >=20 > I don't think that's true at all, and in particular not for people who re= alize=20 > the implications of it. When we replaced Netscape 4 with Mozilla as the default MUA, we disabled the HTML editor at the explicit request of some users. So far only one user has complained. > > As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the > > first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers > > were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email > > messaging capabilities.=20 >=20 > If they want "high quality" e-mail there are a whole variety of options, = going=20 > well beyond HTML. One is to send .DOC files (which can be read with free= ware=20 > viewers), another is Adobe PDF files.=20 These options are way worse than HTML. HTML is simple to render, mostly device-independent (I can view an HTML file just fine in an 80x25 terminal window, and I could also view it on a palm without much loss of quality). Word documents are proprietary, and I don't know any program which can display them reliably except MS Word (and then only the same version which was used to write it). PDF files assume a fixed page layout: My 21" monitor is capable of displaying a whole A4 page in a readble font size. a 17" monitor usually isnt, and a palmtop doesn't stand a chance. Also, Word and PDF generally are a lot larger (even though HTML produced by editors is often extremely bloated). Also, an HTML renderer as a separate program can be small and fast. I use w3m for HTML to text conversion, and it is usually so fast I don't even notice that I'm not reading a text mail. Invoking Star Office or Acroread takes several seconds, and it opens in a separate window, which is annoying (even more so if I am logged in remotely, and the X11 connection is going over an SSH tunnel over a 768 kbit/s leased line (and that's fast - I used a 33.6 modem until not too long ago)). I agree fully, that HTML is usually unnecessary and has little benefit over plain text, but suggesting the use of Word or PDF instead of it is replace one evil with an worse one. > In any case, such mail does not have to=20 > be sent from unknown/untrusted/unfamiliar senders. ACK. > And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the= bulk=20 > is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (= as=20 > plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. For normal mail, I think that's a really stupid idea. (It goes a bit into the direction of message/external-body or Bernstein's IM, but without automatic retrieval by the MUA, that's a sure way to get your e-Mail ignored). It is feasible if the document at the URL meaningful outside of the context of the email (Like: "I wrote up the minutes of the last meeting. You can find them at $url"). hp --=20 _ | Peter J. Holzer | Latein ist das humanoide =C4quivalent |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | zu Fortran. | | | hjp@hjp.at | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Alexander Bartolich in at.linux --DfnuYBTqzt7sVGu3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9ZV3fZ+RkG8quy0RAgjlAJ4j3VutOc0PdHtD05YmYPEJL3sUhwCgvMTD x+33EI/2C3UuLO4kCkMb5eU= =2TS2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DfnuYBTqzt7sVGu3-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 09:07:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10856 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MD7Bu01130 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U4Yp-0000I1-L6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10852; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U4Yo-0004H4-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U4Yi-0004H1-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U4Yf-0000BY-EP; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U4XT-00008e-MQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:06:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10843 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U4XD-0004Gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:05:31 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U4X2-0004Gr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:05:20 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19U4hZ-0001TY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:16:13 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:35:09 EDT." <16115.32269.783632.400725@world.std.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 09:16:11 -0400 Barry Shein wrote: > Virtually all proposals here imply a legal aspect. For example, RMX > implies prevention of identity fraud, a crime. ... in some jurisdictions. RMX is more about establishing a consent framework for use of a domain name, than of preventing legal "fraud". > RMX (and related) is always proposed as a way to thwart those who > are trying to fraudulently identify themselves as having some > affiliation with another, usually readily recognizable, > institution. That's illegal, ... again, in some jurisdictions. Let's remember: the entire world doesn't have the same laws as your local area. > What we haven't seemed to converge on is what is the root of the > problem, where are efforts best expended, etc. Even if some are > anxious to just get on with proposed solutions lacking any foundation > in reality. Ah, so the people proposing solutions are incompetent and/or ignorant. That's a pretty wide brush you've got there. > Yet those aspects get virtually all the attention here, primarily > because they're easily understood by dabblers who haven't really come > to understand the problem and believe they can work entirely from two > pieces of information: what spam messages usually look like, and some > mental model of how SMTP works. Again, you claim that people proposing solutions are incompetent. I find it *very* instructive, Barry, that while you've repeated claimed we should be working towards "weapons of mass destruction" to fight spam, and you've insulted and put down anyone proposing a solution; in turn, you have proposed *nothing*. Your entire position, then, is that you have zero contributions to getting anything done, and that you stand in frank opposition to anyone else getting anything done. I'll be honest here, and admit my actions in this group haven't been above board. My support of RMX was not out of an honest belief that it would solve all of the spam problems. Instead, my support of a proposal (ANY proposal) was to see what kind of crazies it would pull out of the woodwork. So far as that goal goes, my support of RMX has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. > The problem is how spammers amplify their distribution channels while > keeping costs nearly at zero. Without this, they would virtually cease > to exist. A significant percentage of the spam to my domain has North American content, but comes from IP's in China. My contacts at the Chinese embassy say that they've looked into it, and the spam problem isn't on the governments radar. So far as "weapons of mass destruction" to fight spam go, the one with the single largest effect would be to get the government of China to crack down on spammers. That involves political-layer discussions, which are outside of the scope of this group. What *is* in scope for this group is collecting the data to prove that a large percentage of world-wide spam originates in China. But in keeping with the traditions of ASRG, there has been significant opposition to any proposal to collect such data. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 10:51:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12926 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MEpWR10457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6Bo-0002ia-Bi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12922; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6BW-0004Ux-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6BR-0004Uu-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6BJ-0002bm-UM; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6AZ-0002bT-4e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:50:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12916 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6AH-0004Uo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:49:57 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35] helo=rwcrmhc11.attbi.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6A7-0004Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:49:47 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20030622144856013008sovce>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:48:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:49:05 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, Jun 20, 2003, at 18:21 US/Eastern, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > I'm just offering a modest proposal... that > unsolicited, first-contact E-mail be restricted BY DEFAULT from > containing HTML, > attachments, and encoding... and that those restrictions can be > subsequently > lifted by the recipients for senders of their choice. Control, cost > containment, choice, and responsibility. Well, you've proposed it, and you're free to go on proposing it. But it seems to me that the consensus on this list is that your proposal won't work outside of a few fairly narrow social circles. Also, your proposal does not need any changes to be made for it to be implemented today. Anyone who wishes to do so can block HTML e-mail. Most mail clients with reasonable filtering facilities can block HTML e-mail from unknown senders. If you feel it's a technique that deserves more popularity, I suggest you write some user-friendly software to implement it for users who wish to do so. The same goes for file attachments. In fact, I got so sick of being sent Windows viruses and worms that I already block all file attachments that might possibly contain Windows-executable content, including HTML attachments, Office documents and PIF files. I do this not because those things are any danger to my system, but because they're a 100% indicator of spam *for me*. However, I have no illusions that recommending that Office documents be bounced would *ever* be an acceptable solution for the Internet in general. So to summarize: You have an idea, people are already doing it, for some people it works well, for most people it doesn't, it needs no changes in any software anywhere, it has zero chance of being an acceptable recommendation for the Internet in general, and even if we did recommend it users wouldn't obey the recommendation any more than they obey the RFCs when quoting URLs. So I conclude that there's really not much to discuss. So let's just stop, OK? mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 11:02:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13104 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MF29e11575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6M5-00030c-48 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13097; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6M2-0004Ws-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6Lw-0004Wp-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6Lx-0002uN-AT; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6LY-0002uB-WF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:01:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13084 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6LH-0004WX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:01:19 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85] helo=rwcrmhc12.attbi.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6L6-0004WH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:01:08 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003062215001201400nq709e>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:00:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200306211746.h5LHkT0w003604@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <407D0C9C-A4C2-11D7-A454-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:00:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, Jun 21, 2003, at 13:46 US/Eastern, Vernon Schryver wrote: > The current practice of bloating mail by 10X encoding with a > text/plain version and a visibly identical text/html version is nasty, > bad, and incompetent. Yes, but it's also totally outside the purview of the ASRG, unless you think it is in some way an important enabler of spam. I wholeheartedly agree that unnecessary use of HTML in e-mail is stupid. I completely concur that HTML e-mail is generally a waste of bandwidth. However, as far as I can see these arguments over how technically awful HTML e-mail is are irrelevant to this list, because it's not going away and even if it did spam would just go back to being plain text. (In fact, all the spam that's made it through my filters this week has been plain text.) mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 11:37:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13440 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MFbBg15026 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6tz-0003uC-9M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13425; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6tx-0004c7-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6ts-0004c2-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6tp-0003l1-Kw; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6tV-0003kQ-3x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13417 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6tU-0004bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:40 -0400 Received: from sentosa.post1.com ([202.27.17.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6tI-0004bq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 20967 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 15:40:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pobox.org.sg) (207.253.236.137) by sentosa.post1.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 15:40:18 -0000 Message-ID: <3EF5CC13.6060807@pobox.org.sg> From: James Seng User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh-cn, zh-tw, ja, ko MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Peter J. Holzer" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail References: <20030622113935.GN18151@teal.hjp.at> In-Reply-To: <20030622113935.GN18151@teal.hjp.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:32:35 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "behaviour" solutions to spam problem seldom works because spammer will quickly adapt and change their "behaviour". For example, We can filter keywords, and spammer will avoid using those keywords. We can do IP blacklist, and spammer will avoid using those blacklist. We can ban HTML and spammer will start using plain text. etc etc. So, either you have an adaptive (and thus fuzzy) solution or we need to think out of box. -James Seng Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2003-06-19 18:31:58 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>>There are many clear indicators that large numbers of people like to both send >>>and receive HTML formatted messages. >> >>I don't think that's true at all, and in particular not for people who realize >>the implications of it. > > > When we replaced Netscape 4 with Mozilla as the default MUA, we disabled > the HTML editor at the explicit request of some users. So far only one > user has complained. > > >>> As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the >>>first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers >>>were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email >>>messaging capabilities. >> >>If they want "high quality" e-mail there are a whole variety of options, going >>well beyond HTML. One is to send .DOC files (which can be read with freeware >>viewers), another is Adobe PDF files. > > > These options are way worse than HTML. HTML is simple to render, mostly > device-independent (I can view an HTML file just fine in an 80x25 > terminal window, and I could also view it on a palm without much loss of > quality). Word documents are proprietary, and I don't know any program > which can display them reliably except MS Word (and then only the same > version which was used to write it). PDF files assume a fixed page > layout: My 21" monitor is capable of displaying a whole A4 page in a > readble font size. a 17" monitor usually isnt, and a palmtop doesn't > stand a chance. Also, Word and PDF generally are a lot larger (even > though HTML produced by editors is often extremely bloated). > > Also, an HTML renderer as a separate program can be small and fast. I > use w3m for HTML to text conversion, and it is usually so fast I don't > even notice that I'm not reading a text mail. Invoking Star Office or > Acroread takes several seconds, and it opens in a separate window, which > is annoying (even more so if I am logged in remotely, and the X11 > connection is going over an SSH tunnel over a 768 kbit/s leased line > (and that's fast - I used a 33.6 modem until not too long ago)). > > I agree fully, that HTML is usually unnecessary and has little benefit > over plain text, but suggesting the use of Word or PDF instead of it is > replace one evil with an worse one. > > >>In any case, such mail does not have to >>be sent from unknown/untrusted/unfamiliar senders. > > > ACK. > > >>And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk >>is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as >>plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. > > > For normal mail, I think that's a really stupid idea. (It goes a bit > into the direction of message/external-body or Bernstein's IM, but > without automatic retrieval by the MUA, that's a sure way to get your > e-Mail ignored). It is feasible if the document at the URL meaningful > outside of the context of the email (Like: "I wrote up the minutes of > the last meeting. You can find them at $url"). > > hp > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 12:23:32 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13439 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MFbBh15025 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6tz-0003uB-9K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13424; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6tx-0004c9-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6ts-0004c3-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6tq-0003lR-5Q; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:37:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U6tf-0003kV-MD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13420 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6te-0004bx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:50 -0400 Received: from sentosa.post1.com ([202.27.17.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U6tT-0004br-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:36:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 21000 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 15:43:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pobox.org.sg) (207.253.236.137) by sentosa.post1.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 15:43:17 -0000 Message-ID: <3EF5CC56.9030804@pobox.org.sg> From: James Seng User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh-cn, zh-tw, ja, ko MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Peter J. Holzer" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail References: <20030622113935.GN18151@teal.hjp.at> In-Reply-To: <20030622113935.GN18151@teal.hjp.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:33:42 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "behaviour" solutions to spam problem seldom works because spammer will quickly adapt and change their "behaviour". For example, We can filter keywords, and spammer will avoid using those keywords. We can do IP blacklist, and spammer will avoid using those blacklist. We can ban HTML and spammer will start using plain text. etc etc. So, either you have an adaptive (and thus fuzzy) solution or we need to think out of box. -James Seng Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2003-06-19 18:31:58 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>>There are many clear indicators that large numbers of people like to both send >>>and receive HTML formatted messages. >> >>I don't think that's true at all, and in particular not for people who realize >>the implications of it. > > > When we replaced Netscape 4 with Mozilla as the default MUA, we disabled > the HTML editor at the explicit request of some users. So far only one > user has complained. > > >>> As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the >>>first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers >>>were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email >>>messaging capabilities. >> >>If they want "high quality" e-mail there are a whole variety of options, going >>well beyond HTML. One is to send .DOC files (which can be read with freeware >>viewers), another is Adobe PDF files. > > > These options are way worse than HTML. HTML is simple to render, mostly > device-independent (I can view an HTML file just fine in an 80x25 > terminal window, and I could also view it on a palm without much loss of > quality). Word documents are proprietary, and I don't know any program > which can display them reliably except MS Word (and then only the same > version which was used to write it). PDF files assume a fixed page > layout: My 21" monitor is capable of displaying a whole A4 page in a > readble font size. a 17" monitor usually isnt, and a palmtop doesn't > stand a chance. Also, Word and PDF generally are a lot larger (even > though HTML produced by editors is often extremely bloated). > > Also, an HTML renderer as a separate program can be small and fast. I > use w3m for HTML to text conversion, and it is usually so fast I don't > even notice that I'm not reading a text mail. Invoking Star Office or > Acroread takes several seconds, and it opens in a separate window, which > is annoying (even more so if I am logged in remotely, and the X11 > connection is going over an SSH tunnel over a 768 kbit/s leased line > (and that's fast - I used a 33.6 modem until not too long ago)). > > I agree fully, that HTML is usually unnecessary and has little benefit > over plain text, but suggesting the use of Word or PDF instead of it is > replace one evil with an worse one. > > >>In any case, such mail does not have to >>be sent from unknown/untrusted/unfamiliar senders. > > > ACK. > > >>And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk >>is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as >>plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. > > > For normal mail, I think that's a really stupid idea. (It goes a bit > into the direction of message/external-body or Bernstein's IM, but > without automatic retrieval by the MUA, that's a sure way to get your > e-Mail ignored). It is feasible if the document at the URL meaningful > outside of the context of the email (Like: "I wrote up the minutes of > the last meeting. You can find them at $url"). > > hp > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 12:31:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13946 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MGVD020635 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U7kH-0005Mk-Ea for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13939; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U7kF-0004kb-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U7kA-0004kY-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U7k4-0005Kr-V7; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:31:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U7jq-0005KV-Eg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:30:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13926 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:30:28 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U7jZ-0004kM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:30:29 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U7jP-0004kJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:30:19 -0400 Received: (cpmta 27983 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 09:29:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 09:29:57 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 16:29:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:28:24 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:55:35 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] "more readable" To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:55:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>HTML is not, and has never been, a precise or deterministic page layout >>>Fax by its nature is an IMAGE. HTML is NOT an image, nor is it a page >>>They can do that using Adobe Acrobat, Word, TeX, and various other >>kinds of page composition languages. HTML is NOT like any of those. >>Quite right. There are all perfectly valid technical arguments. And >of course those tools are all available to users. Why do you suppose >they use HTML instead? It's the easiest tool. It's builtin to the >mail program. So they use it. They don't care whether it sends >html, postscript or word underneath. It's what they have. Generally, they don't have the slightest clue what the implications are of turning the feature on, in part because THEIR E-mail program hides the extra bulk and "ugliness" from them. While in some situations, software SHOULD hide the 'inner workings'... there's also the danger that sometimes (as in this case) one gets an arrogance based on ignorance... rather like Marie Antoinette, who was so insulated from the day-to-day issues her subjects endured that when told they had no bread, cavalierly and in ignorance replied, "let them eat cake!" Anyhow, it's one thing to REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND that many users are ignorant. It's another thing to go out of our way to continue and nurture that ignorance. Personally, I think that most users are educable. We ought to give them the information they need to make good choices. But in EITHER case, it's not at all unreasonable to offer the tools to the less ignorant to protect them from the carelessness and thoughtlessness of the more ignorant. [E-mail as opposed to Web sites] >>not ONLY about what just ONE of them wants. To be useful, it must >>be useful and >>correspond with the needs and wishes of BOTH of those parties. >That would be nice, but it is by no means a requirement. Sure, but there's likewise NO requirement that the recipient has to read or listen to a sender or speaker, either. They need to have the right (and tools) to allow them to simply "turn off" the offending speaker or sender. >>That is not a key part of my proposal, although if it's only just a matter of >>destination/origin name pairs I would suggest that "keeping track" of every >>correspondent you've exchanged mail with represents a terribly small >>database by >>today's standards (and that doesn't necessarily need to be on your >>own machine, >>it could well be at your ISP or domain provider). >And when I change ISPs and everyone's email to me bounces? First off, only mail violating your stated permissions bounces (as it should). Presumably your system could maintain (or download) a (local copy?) list of your own permissions for each of your known/trusted senders. When moving to a new ISP, presuming that they offer a similar permissions list feature, you could upload your permissions list to "seed" the new ISP's filters. Of course, if the new ISP doesn't offer such a feature, you'll probably start getting more and larger spam/viruses/trojans again. :-(( >Or when RIAA comes calling and asks for a list of everyone I may have >sent an MP3 to? Anybody can ask for anything they like. Doesn't mean you have to give it to them. If they get a court order allowing them to seize and examine your computer (and/or the mail logs from your ISP) then there's probably a lot more evidence of any guilt (or innocence) than just your mail permissions. (So that's really a bogus point.) ...(which probably wouldn't indicate, anyhow, what TYPE of attachments you'd allowed! although one could certainly imagine a proposed extension to the permissions list where one could specify that a given sender could send only certain ALLOWED attachment extensions... say, GIF/JPG only... and that executable extension types attachments could only be received from an even smaller subset of your corresponding senders.) > No thank you. I'd rather have the spam. That should certainly be one of the choices open to you, as the recipient. Honeypot mailboxes, for example, will want to receive EVERY spam message they can. >>I think that just about everything we have been proposing represents at least >>SOME kind of change, AT LEAST at the ISP level. One big advantage of what I >>propose is that it can be implemented at a *single* ISP (indeed, even at a >>single *recipient*) and virtually immediately yield a very substantial >>improvement. >Read the example scenario someone gave to your proposal. I haven't seen it yet (I'm running digest mode on this list), but I'm sure I will. But I'll go ahead and respond to it here. >You mother bounces email from your aunt. First of all, since she presumably has had an ongoing correspondence with the aunt, she probably already has the appropriate permissions set, so that the aunt's mail doesn't bounce. >The mail to your aunt (with the latest >pictures of the grandkids) didn't get through. The instructions tell >her not to send HTML the first time. She doesn't know what that >means (trust me, I've tried to explain the situation to *lots* of >email users). If the accompanying instructions (whether in the return E-mail, or in the suggested Web site it contains a URL pointer to) is good enough, then most people will be able to understand and deal with the problem. > She calls up your mother. She can't help, But she CAN, since if aunt calls mother, it would be a SIMPLE matter for mother to set aunt's permissions to allow sending mother the desired attachment. End of problem... simple, quick, straightforward. >she calls her ISP. Her ISP explains the problem, she tells them to stop >blocking HTML. You've increased customer support costs, and haven't >reduced spam. Talk about a leap of logic. Permissions lists are CERTAINLY not going to be routinely maintained by telephone calls to customer support at the ISP. You're talking about costs to the ISP, and I'll point out that *none* of the proposals I've seen here (spf, et al)... other than mine... have been about significantly reducing overall bandwidth costs to the ISP. What everyone seems to think appropriate is adding additional layers of overhead to SMTP, DNS, etc etc. which ONLY increases total bandwidth used. Besides, as I think I've made VERY obvious, spam will be DRAMATICALLY reduced (at least relative to without it!) by use of my permissions list... certainly in terms of bytes per spam (if they abandon use of HTML and associated tricks and attachments). Probably in count as well (deliveries, even if not sendings). And in the case where spammers do NOT stop sending HTML-burdened spam, then the permissions list ends up either bouncing or t-canning virtually ALL of it. There is virtually NO rational argument for a situation where the permissions list approach would not DRAMATICALLY reduce spam. Count, or aggregate bytes, and probably both. As a side benefit, the permissions list approach would take a HUGE bite out of viruses/worms/trojans, too... which spf et al would almost CERTAINLY not achieve. >Stop thinking bits and networks. Starting thinking real people on >real machines with real customer support problems. Your solution is >not feasible in the real world. I disagree. And I've been thinking about "real world" users and problems (and solving those problems!) in this business for more than thirty years. >Viruses were spread before HTML email. Right, mostly by attachments (and before that, mostly by bootable floppies or infected executables). HTML (along with ActiveX and such) has merely added a further danger. >Spam was spread before HTML email. Right, but HTML has made it FAR more insidious. I don't think ANYBODY can with a straight face pretend that HTML hasn't been increasingly employed by spammers to "trick up" their E-mails to try to evade or confuse filters put up to try to defend against it (as well as to try to obfuscate the guilty parties, to try to make it harder for most recipients to know who they should send their complaints to.) Even so, I'm not proposing that we ELIMINATE HTML-burdened E-mail (as much as many of us more-technical-types might like to see that happen). I'm saying that we should give users the tools to allow them to block its use by UNTRUSTED and UNKNOWN senders. This would undeniably block a GREAT deal of spam, and reduce significantly the costs associated with the remainder. >You offer absolutely no evidence that convinces that removing >HTML email would have any impact at all on spammers. I'll comment that NOBODY here has offered "proof" that ANYTHING that's been proposed here would have "any impact at all" on spammers. However, I think that there is (even in the absence of "proof") widespread agreement among most of us on this list that spammers would either: * revert to sending plain ASCII text E-mails (reducing spam size by typically 70% or more, and making it more readily identifiable by content filtering) or * continue sending HTML-burdened E-mail regardless, in which case it would be mostly or entirely blocked due to coming from an "unapproved/unknown/untrusted" (on a recipient-by-recipient basis) sender of HTML-burdened E-mails. I don't see ANY POSSIBLE scenario in which such a "permissions list" approach would NOT have an on spammers, their techniques and their methods. If you CAN imagine such a scenario, perhaps you'll share it with us. :-) >Would they stop >earning money all of a sudden because the spam was plain text? It is virtually certain that spam would become less productive for them. The tricks they use to evade filtering and confuse recipients would largely be denied to them. It remains to be seen HOW MUCH less productive spamming will have to be in order for many spammers to decide it's not worth it. I don't think there's likely to be a single "silver bullet" (or "wooden stake") which will put an end to spamming by itself. It's more likely that Net-employed things like my proposed permissions list, combined with some high-profile anti-spam wins in the courts, combined with more decisive legislation by the relevant jurisdictions, and probably other measures, will all combine to tighten the noose around the necks of spammers. Eventually, more and more of them will drop out and decide to take up other professions. >Would it put them out of business? $5-6000 a week people were earning on >the Iraqi card spam. There's a lot of money earned in all manner of illicit professions. I don't think we're going to eliminate organized crime here overnight, either. >The vast majority of spam you receive has HTML >tricks in it to fool the spam filters--not the reader. I can send you plenty of examples of other types, if you really want. But I'm sure you've seen them too. Among them are frauds attempting to steal personal information related to E-bay and PayPal accounts by techniques including obfuscated URLs of the sort such as: http://www.paypal.com@%nn%nn%nn.%nn%nn%nn%nn%nn.%nn%nn%nn/bogus/stealdata.htm Presumably, well-written spam filters wouldn't be deceived into thinking that paypal was the actual server being connected to. Those techniques are designed to fool the casual observer who DOES take the trouble to look at the actual HTML being received, and who doesn't understand what the "@" means. Other sorts of things include stuff like: www.ebay.com I don't know why we even have to discuss stuff like this here. Most of the readers on this list ought to have seen more than enough of these kinds of things to understand the problem, and to realize that HTML is a BIG part of the problem. >The fact that the content is HTML is irrelevant. ABSOLUTELY *NOT* true. >Do you really think the average >user is going to realize that >http://www.microsoft.com@192.168.1.10/foo.html isn't Microsoft, just >because they now have to cut and paste it? Perhaps not, but at least it gives them the opportunity to LOOK at it, which they usually now don't really have. Clueless users tend to "just click" on links and have no idea of what they just did, or where they went. Each of these things make a little difference. Together, they can make a BIG difference. >You've shown no benefit, Rubbish. I think that the benefit is substantial and UNDENIABLE. Probably a BETTER return on investment than ANYTHING else that has been discussed here, in fact. >and substantial software rewrite Which software are you talking about that you think would have to be "rewritten"? Indeed, I think that one of the ADVANTAGES of the "permission list" approach is that it would have almost NO _requirements_ on "rewriting" basically anything else. The whole point of the permissions lists is that recipients can opt to continue receiving ANYTHING AT ALL that they receive at present, with NO changes at all required by senders OR in the main E-mail software used by the recipients. (The default, I feel, ought to be 'locked down' in any case.) Recipients could employ the new spam-and-worm-blocking powers to any degree they wished, or not at all. Their choice. (Personally, I think that most recipients are pissed off enough about spamming that they'll choose to use the filtering with a vengeance...) But we would find out, anyhow, what the percentages are, after a few weeks/months/years of having such a system in place. I *would* hope that AOL and Microsoft would both eventually see the wisdom in ceasing the pointless and hugely wasteful sending of HTML-burdened E-mails by default. But the 'permissions list' approach still works fine, even if they don't. >and customer support costs. There are substantial "customer support costs" due to spamming, too. Our goal is to reduce the spamming plague. There will probably be a spike of customer support issues at the BEGINNING of a 'permissions list' approach, sure. To some degree, that's inevitable (and will probably be true for ANY change we propose AT ALL). The difference is that it will be a SPIKE and people will figure it out, whereas the customer support issues regarding spam are otherwise ongoing, and (worse) growing. >Make a real proposal with real numbers, then it's worth discussing. Why are you trying to hold my proposal to a higher standard than any of the other proposals discussed here? Or are they not "worth discussing" here either? Anyhow, sorry... I don't agree. >Better yet--convince a single ISP to try it. Sounds good to me. I don't know which if any of them might have folks lurking (or participating!) here. I'd be glad to offer my consulting services to any of them, though, who might feel that this would be worth trying (although the idea isn't so complicated that most of them couldn't probably implement it easily enough with existing inhouse staff). It's possible that we could "bluesky" interesting and worthwhile side things, such as good ways to maintain the permissions lists or something. > Nobody is going to propose it as a standard until it's been proven in action. 1) My idea doesn't NEED to be proposed or made "a standard" in order to be useful. That's one of its BIG advantages, in fact... it doesn't REQUIRE a network-wide consensus, the way spf and some (many!) other proposals do. 2) If something DOES require "a standard" in order to "be proven in action", and nobody will propose it as "a standard" until it has been, then it sounds to me like we've set up a chicken-and-egg situation which isn't going to get us anywhere. I really do wonder if some of the folks here aren't here with the primary goal of tossing spanners into the gearworks of any approach which could make a real difference regarding spam. But getting back to the earlier point, I don't think there's ANY plausible case to be made for the contention that widespread adoption of such a "permissions list" approach would be totally ignored by spammers, and that it wouldn't have a SIGNIFICANT (and negative to them) impact on how they ply their trade. I think it is similarly damned difficult to make a plausible case for the contention that the result (whichever way the spammers move) wouldn't significantly reduce spam mail volume. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 13:19:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14312 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MHJAm24555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U8Ug-0006Ny-Ff for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14295; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U8Ue-0004pe-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U8UY-0004pb-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U8UW-0006M1-Lp; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:19:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U8Tl-0006Ll-Vp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:18:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14277 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U8TV-0004pF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:17:57 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U8TJ-0004p8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:17:46 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5MHHOrs021626 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:17:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306221717.h5MHHOrs021626@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <407D0C9C-A4C2-11D7-A454-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:17:24 -0600 (MDT) > From: mathew > ... > Yes, but it's also totally outside the purview of the ASRG, unless you > think it is in some way an important enabler of spam. > > I wholeheartedly agree that unnecessary use of HTML in e-mail is > stupid. I completely concur that HTML e-mail is generally a waste of > bandwidth. However, as far as I can see these arguments over how > technically awful HTML e-mail is are irrelevant to this list, because > it's not going away and even if it did spam would just go back to being > plain text. > > (In fact, all the spam that's made it through my filters this week has > been plain text.) How much HTML spam did your filters reject before it got to your mailbox? If HTML vs. spam spam is off-topic here, then so are all other anti-spam mechanisms that allow mail among strangers. They are all much less then perfect and so by your criteria must be off topic: - RMX/etc must be off topic because unsolicited bulk mail can and often is sent with completely valid sender information. Spammers need only switch to sending from "bulletproof hosting bureaus" to be invulnerable to any sort of reverse DNS mechanism. - any form of CR/CRI that involves automated or potentially automated (e.g. text only) challenging must be off topic because spammers need only have their computers answer the challenges. Since there is no immediate prospect of a computer that can pass a Turing test, it is impossible for a coputer to pose a challenge that cannot be passed by another computer given sufficient processing, including pictures and sounds. Thus even challenges that are intended to be answered only by humans can in principle be "scripted." - any sort of authentication as a spam defense that still allows receiving mail from long lost friends is off-topic, because spammers need only buy new, authenticated identities from Verisign or other identity vendors as needed. - any sort of sender-pays system is off topic because spammers need only pay to send it. Junk postal mail advertisers are willing to spend up to $0.50 (US) per target, and that's far more than any proposed sender pays system. - laws against spam are hopeless because many spammers now enthusiastically break existing laws. And so on for absolutely every scheme including blacklisting, graylisting, Bayesian filtering, keyword filtering, SpamAssassin, and my personal favorite, the DCC. Of course it is silly to talk about ISPs or any large organizations filtering HTML by default. That does not imply that it would not be good and profitable to write a BCP saying (among many other things): Filtering HTML mail from strangers is an effect spam defense and should be considered a 1%-10% false positive rate can be tolerated. Because some individuals and organizations do filter HTML mail from strangers, you SHOULD NOT send HTML or mail involving unnecessary MIME attachments to strangers. Like any and all spam defenses that allow mail from strangers, filtering HTML mail is only partially effective. As for the talk about MIME attachements--yes, of course digital signatures are nice, but they're almost always a waste of bandwidth on mail from strangers. A 4 KByte signature block in a public mailing list or in a private message from a stranger is evidence only of the sender's mistake, ignorance, or egotism. MIME attachments of supposed signatures on mail from strangers prove nothing more than the MIME attachements of supposed PGP signatures on spam. (I hope (or wish) anyone who presumes to talk about spam here has enough experence with spam to have seen plenty of spam with MIME PGP attachements.) For base64 and quoted-printable--again, how do you expect people in China to talk to each other if don't allow them to encode their language in what is still fundamentally a 7-bit ASCII, ANSI x3.-4, transport, where ASCII stands for "American standard for character information interchange" and does not even allow the English to talk about their money? Besides, only toy or snakeoil spam filters are the least bothered by Base64 or quoted-printable and neither costs significant bandwidth. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 14:13:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14899 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MIDHH28761 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9L3-0007To-7Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14885; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9L0-0004vv-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9Kv-0004vr-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9Km-0007Qj-Jg; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9Kb-0007QY-TC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14869 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9KZ-0004vh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:47 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9KO-0004vY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:37 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (sparrow@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5MICGwl011764 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:16 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00040; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16117.61823.584617.395250@world.std.com> To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <20030621234539.A6723@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> <20030621234539.A6723@m433> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:12:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 21, 2003 at 23:45 waltdnes@waltdnes.org (Walter Dnes) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 07:33:49PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote > > Some of the more notorious black lists actively scanned the net > > with software for systems which fit their notion of "open relays" > > and would add these to the net as a hazard. > > > > Now, would it be possible to scan similarly for systems infected > > with Jeem or one of the other spammer slave bugs? > > This would have to be at least partially a legislative solution. > Let's just say that anybody scanning large portions of the net raises > eyebrows, and is reason for termination at many ISPs. I see, now we've progressed from objection to purely legal solutions to objection to any technical solution which conceivably could be used in a way which might be considered illegal? So, tell me, since I'm describing behavior which has been going on for years, not hypothetical, exactly how many of those blacklist operators have been charged with any crime? Convicted? Ok, we'll make it easier, name one (other than that jerk in New Zealand who got in legal trouble for blacklisting his phone company in an attempt to get them to lower his bill.) Put more constructively: Given a good and effective technical solution, as the expression goes, the world (the big round one) might just beat a path to your door. It's too restrictive to begin to speculate that some technical solution might be considered illegal by someone, somewhere, consider how many countries there are in the world! I counter-propose that shooting down a technical solution based on purely legal objections is outside the scope of this group's charter. But more specifically, if someone had a good virus-scanner/detector that was relatively harmless (other than to spammers) it wouldn't be hard to imagine (speaking as an ISP) that ISPs might include use of it in their AUP and companies, universities, etc. might employ it internally. So the question is not whether a technical soln might be used illegally, the question is whether a proposed solution might be used LEGALLY. I can pound you with a baseball bat, but that's not a very good argument for making baseball illegal. > > What would we do with that information? > > > > That's probably not necessary to answer, unless someone doubts > > anything good could be done. But, for example, inform the owner, > > an ISP might quarantine or mail rate-limit a known infected computer > > until it's fixed, block it entirely (from mail, from everything), etc. > > From postings I've seen on nanae (news.admin.net-abuse.email), when > some large outfits are provided with headers of virus emails day-in, > day-out from certain IP addresses, they don't seem very active in > getting the customer off the net. They're overwhelmed. I can tell you, it's a royal pain in the ass here. Particularly when it's nothing but a $$$ subsidy of Microsoft because they find it more profitable to ship virus-vulnerable operating systems. At this point in time MS is making many millions of dollars off of not fixing their operating systems, and that millions of dollars is not coming out of thin air, it's coming out of the pockets of anyone who has ever had a cost effect from a virus-infected computer, including now the entire net being deluged with spam. The technology to make virus infection next to impossible (as evidenced by readily available OS's which are immune to them) has been around for decades. MS has now continued to profit from this problem on their newest OS releases (e.g., XP is vulnerable to Jeem, sobig.a, Proxy-Guzu, etc.) > > > Maybe we should also issue an RFC that simply says that the days of > > computer, including personal and desktop computer, operating systems > > being vulnerable to viruses (within some problem definition) should > > have been over years ago via widely distributed and well-known > > techniques utilized in highly successful and comparable operating > > systems software. > > An RFC means nothing if it isn't enforced. You almost need an > "internet driver's licence" or a "Killer-V" to get the problems off the > net. Wait a minute, there have been over 3000 RFC's issued. Do you mean to tell us they all mean nothing? Hmm, why are we here? What do you imagine the product of this group likely to be? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 14:15:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14944 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MIF8S29398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9Mp-0007e5-V3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14933; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9Mn-0004we-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9Mh-0004wb-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:14:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9Mj-0007Xt-ID; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9MU-0007Xc-Jb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:14:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14929 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9MS-0004wX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:14:44 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9MH-0004wD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:14:33 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (covici@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5MIDMI9009804 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:23 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00324; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16117.61891.38070.153561@world.std.com> To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <20030621235252.B6723@m433> References: <200306192142.h5JLg4iC033686@nic-naa.net> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620111843.00ba87d0@std5.imagineis.com> <16115.33221.317731.760532@world.std.com> <20030621235252.B6723@m433> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:13:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You really need to look up the term "straw man" and get back to us. Selective editing, as you did here, is also the sign of someone who should be ignored. On June 21, 2003 at 23:52 waltdnes@waltdnes.org (Walter Dnes) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 05:51:01PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote > > > Yes, replacing all MS windows operating systems on all computers > > attached to the net with either Unix or a modern unix-like operating > > system (Linux, Mac OSX) would eliminate about 99% of the spam and put > > virtually all spammers out of business instantly. > > And my boss thinks I'm a linux zealot, sheesh. The newbies *WILL* > find ways to screw up. Or don't you remember what happened when some > idiots set up every school in South Korea with sendmail wide-open for > relaying ? And if Windows disappears, the dumbkopf who wrote AnalogX > will probably port it to linux with the same brain-dead wide-open > defaults. It's not the OS behind the computer, it's the nut behind the > keyboard that's the problem. > > -- > Walter Dnes > Email users are divided into two classes; > 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking > 2) Those who wish they did > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 14:32:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15195 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MIVAZ30191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:31:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9cM-0007qs-TN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:31:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15159; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9cK-00050b-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:31:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9cE-00050Y-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:31:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9cD-0007ow-Kg; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19U9c1-0007ob-BB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:30:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15144 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:30:31 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9bj-00050V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:30:31 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19U9bY-00050S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:30:20 -0400 Received: (cpmta 8238 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 11:29:54 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 11:29:54 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 18:29:54 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:27:57 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:55:11 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Collected comments on spamming, permissions lists, et al Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:55:11 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> (Could you adjust your line length to less than 78? My ancient MUA > doesn't rewrap lines, and I think it shouldn't. I control my own line > lengths by piping paragraphs through `fmt` as I edit them with `vi`.) >> Could, but in my experience the artifacts of doing that tends to > be worse rather than better, since one ends up with chewed-up > interlaced paragraphs that are even more frustrating. Sorry. > What's that about interlaced paragraphs on text with proper lengths? Presently my mailer is set when composing messages to set a line break at column 80. If I set it to less than that, then quoted lines which are 82 columns wide (say) end up looking like this. This can make for very ugly paragraphs, unless I end up going through the paragraphs and reformatting them manually (which I'm not always willing to take the time to do. This is especially true on paragraphs which have been quoted several times in an exchange and grow (due to the quoting indicators) at each level of quoting, and then broken several times. These paragraphs get really ugly. This is one reason why I usually MANUALLY insert a quote level indicator only just on the first line of a quoted paragraph... to prevent quote level line size creep on every line of quoted paragraphs. But that's just my own convention which works for me. Obviously you have the right to choose differently. > Typing like an old fashioned typiest and hitting "Return" before the right margin yields text that is far more intelligible. Feel free to do that if you prefer. To me, not having to hit ENTER on every line is part of the advantages of having a computer instead of a typewriter. :-) > It seems you've switched to no hard line breaks except at the ends of paragraphs. I haven't changed anything in my mail software configuration in quite a long time. I've pretty much given up trying to figure out all the vagaries of processinng that E-mail can sometimes go through enroute. > That's better, or less bad, than your previous 79-83 character lines. Again, my composing is set to insert a line break at 80 columns. > I can send a 300 character paragraph through `fmt`, quickly add '> ' to the beginnings, and produce something that's legible in the archives. 79-83 character lines are a royal pain to quote. I don't use "fmt". That's okay, you don't use MY preferred mail software, either. :-) >>> ...until ISPs can tell users who complain "run the Netscape or > Microsoft auto-update mechanism", they will not and cannot do such > filtering by default. >> I'm not sure I understand your comment. The reason they would > want to change THEIR mail software would be so it would NOT generate > HTML-burdened E-mail by default. To truncate the undesirable/untrusted > stuff earlier on the transmission/delivery path (BEFORE wasting as > Fine, but no non-trivial ISP that wants to keep its users, and for that matter, no "IT" department that wants to keep its empire could start filtering incoming HTML mail by default this month or even this year. Actually, for an ISP, they'd probably phase it in. There are a whole variety of imaginable ways to handle that. For example, one approach might be that all 'would be filtered' E-mail would deliver to the recipient along with a note (either prepended/appended or as a separate E-mail) that warned about the upcoming change and the affected E-mail, and offered an easy way to deal with it. Perhaps they'd be offered the choices of "allow such mail in the future arriving from this sender", "mail the sender an informative form letter asking them to send to me in plain ASCII format instead", "bounce such mails from this sender in the future" or just "t-can such mails from this sender in the future". The warning should point out that a default blocking of such mails from infrequent/unknown/untrusted senders (including virtually all spammers and worms/trojans) will take place after (whatever future date) unless or until the recipient wishes to 'opt out' of the protection feature. How those choices might be implemented and relayed to the ISP could vary depending upon the particular needs of the ISP or company and the type of procedures and systems they use. > Local users would revolt because a large fraction of their incoming mail would be bouncing. Until mail that is legitimate except for gratuitous HTML encryption is largely gone, no large outfit can filter HTML by default. I suspect that the larger outfits will come onboard slower, perhaps kicking and screaming (despite the fact that THEY will have the most to gain by doing so). I'd guess that smaller ISPs will initially see this as a major opportunity to differentiate their services from those of "larger, less responsive" ISPs. > The most that any large outfit can offer is to filter HTML mail for users who ask for such filtering. I don't agree on that point, although I do suspect that there will be a transition period to help the user to build up their "permissions list" for those who frequently send mail to that recipient. I doubt that the transition period will need to be more than two or three months, since frequent senders will probably all be approved by the end of that time. One might imagine a secondary stage of the transition, during which time the ISP might reroute offending messages to a different mail queue (to hold them for a few days, or even weeks perhaps) and send the recipient (say, daily, hourly, whatever,,, maybe once per E-mail pickup run?) a list or digest (maybe the headers and the first three/ten lines of the body?) or something of the details of the mails which would have been bounced or blocked, and giving the user a simple way for each on the list to: 1) deliver that message to them on a one-time basis 2) deliver that and similar messages in the future (i.e. give permission) ...(again, or other options...) This would spare them delivery of the unwanted messages as a transitional stage, while still allowing them to see what would have blocked. The pending queue could hold messages for a while, or eventually discard them or bounce them if not eventually picked up or otherwise dealt with. Perhaps the user would be given the choice of at what point they're content to skip the need for this daily "messages held pending list" entirely and progress to full automatic bounce-or-discard processing. > There are many ways to do that today. I think one is to use a Milter version of SpamAssassin, although I'm not sure if all of those support per-user control files. The key problem with that, as a primary approach, is that filtering only-at-the-end-user means that essentially all of the cost of the handling of the spam has already been incurred. > I've seen plenty of headers on mail saying that base64 encoding has beem removed. I've also seen plenty of spews with some samples encoded and some not. > But regardless, what's your point about Base64? It does nothing to help spammers or hurt filters. It *does* complicate content filtering. It's another stage that must be performed before the content can be examined for "suspicious" content. > The first is why relatively little spam is current base64 encoded. Hopefully that will continue to be true. :-) > Base64 encoding wastes 30% of bandwidth and disk space, but that's not a reasonable concern given the small fraction of total traffic that is all email. If we don't have to worry about E-mail bulk, then we're mostly wasting our time here. The lawsuits that HAVE been placed against spammers by large ISPs usually are predicated precisely on the fact that the spam wastes ISP resources and costs them a significant amount of money. > HTML as it is commonly processed by receiving MUAs has many evils, but base64 is merely a trivial waste of bandwidth. Trivial? Maybe, maybe not. I'd be willing to forego (for now, at least) the ability to by default drop out base64-encoded message bodies from the default permission list filtering, as long as we'd get the HTML-burdened mail filtering and attachments filtering (perhaps with further subselection by attachment type... lots of correspondents and mailing list who might send me a PDF/GIF/JPG are folks who I would *never* want to accept an EXE/SCR/PIF/VBS/etc file from!). [snip] >> ...we do have a well-established and longstanding convention that plain >ASCII text is the _most_ universal form of E-mail that EVERYBODY can read on >virtually ANY kind of device. It makes sense, until a sender knows that >other >types are also acceptable, to send in most widely readable and acceptable >format. > ...As for a "longstanding convention", due to the many MUAs sending HTML email, that convention has been changed and now HTML email is acceptable. It doesn't change just because some thoughtless and inconsiderate (or merely ignorant) senders choose to send mail which doesn't satisfy it. Not everybody reads mail using Web browsers, and even more people don't read E-mail online (this is especially true outside the USA where many users still pay a per-minute-local-call charge to connect with their ISP, and thus prefer to read and respond to their E-mail offline). Some people are even reading and responding to E-mail using their notebook computers at 33,000 feet (and are DEFINITELY not doing THAT online, at least at present). For these people, it is highly annoying to get an E-mail that includes text-image fetches from Web servers and other forms of Web bugs in it. But again, if in fact this is really an "acceptable" format for everybody, and they don't see value in using it to help throttle spammers and their abuses, then they'll just all set the filters to 'wide open' and things will be no worse than at present. [snip] > First of all, making sure email is not untraceble allows for LEA to catch the spammers. Unforunately, there ARE legitimate cases ('whistleblower' E-mails or e-mails from repressive regimes) where untraceability can be of primary importance. > This would involve either changing SMTP, implementing C/R, or some other system that would allow for traceability. All of those approaches seem to require a consensus, a willingness to change globally. I don't see that happening, especially if some strongly civil-rights-to-privacy-oriented ISPs refuse to go along. I personally don't think that we MUST enforce "untraceable" E-mail, as long as we offer recipients the option to say that they simply don't want to receive that type (or other types) of mail from such shady senders. This gets back again to the "permissions list" concept I've proposed. > Domain names being owned by spammers is a problem too. Solutions must be made to deal with that as well. Foreign ISPs, allowing for spam are also a problem. Frankly, I don't think you'll EVER solve that one. Better to just simply give the recipient the control to block the risky/bulky/obscured stuff they don't want, from any people they don't recognize. Of course, another option might be offered in the permissions list approach, and that's kind of one of the functions of my own incoming mail filtering system... and that's to say "Allow incoming E-mail that's HTML-burdened, but strip out all the HTML and such that looks unnecessary or suspicious." This way, even if Aunt Bertha hasn't been added to my list of trusted recipients, her mail wouldn't be blocked just because she unthinkingly tried to boldface one word in it... the offending and tags would just be silently removed in transit. Again, this isn't a general proposal, but it IS an option that might be offered, and might be an alternative to bounce/t-can HTML-burdened incoming messages. One could even develop a more complicated and sophisticated concept which would further differentiate HTML based on what tags were used... where the stuff Aunt Bertha or other fairly clueless users might be inclined to use (fonts maybe, italic, boldface, underline) would be tolerated but stuff that Aunt Bertha would probably never use (scripting, tables, frames, cascading style sheets, whatever) would trigger the anti-spam defenses. Again, there are many possible variants on these ideas and much of the control ought to be left to the choice of the recipient. > And as you have mentioned many times before computers infected with viruses and other similar junk are a problem as well, although I do not see any possible solutions for that as well, not even any avenues of research. The only viable defense for that IMHO is to prevent them from getting infected in the first place, and blocking attachments from people who aren't normally to be expected to send them (and with possible subapproval by types) would go a long way towards solving that problem, too. [snip] > If a large number of systems on the internet start depending on whitelisting, then spammers will start seeking out ways of sending you email from addresses that you have probably whitelisted. That's certainly true. That's one reason why you want to minimize the number of people who you give those special permissions to (and why well-known large senders will want to not require those special permissions, since it will open their identities to such kinds of impersonation frauds). That's a good reason for newsletter senders (for instance) to send plain ASCII text versions of their newsletters... apart from the sheer bulk issues. [snip] > It makes no sense to talk about filtering HTML by default for the immediately foreseeable future, I certainly don't agree with that. One approach that might work during a primary transition period is discussed above. > ...but BCPs on aspects of spam, virus, worms, or privacy could quite properly and valuably urge that HTML be used only when really required or explicitly requested. The current practice of bloating mail by 10X encoding with a text/plain version and a visibly identical text/html version is nasty, bad, and incompetent. On that point, I *strongly* agree. [standing ovation!] Once people realize the costs and hazards involved, I think we can ratchet back a lot of that... AT LEAST by spammers. [snip] > Unfortunately, restricting email content type seems unlikely to have any long-term impact on spam, as the spammers will simply adapt their behavior to whatever content type is most likely to get their message across. That claim is self-contradictory. If spammers change their behavior to send out plain ASCII text spam messages, since that is the only type certain to get through from previously unknown senders, then we *have* had a long-term impact on spam... if _nothing_ else, by reducing its volume by 70% or more. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 15:28:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16921 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MJRXU02285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAUv-0000am-KJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16915; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAUu-00058L-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:32 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAUo-00058F-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAUO-0000Xj-Nj; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAUJ-0000XW-43 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:26:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16889 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:26:53 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAUH-00057w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:26:53 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAU7-00057i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:26:43 -0400 Received: (cpmta 6735 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 12:25:57 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 12:25:57 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 19:25:57 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:25:29 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:52:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] More miscellaneous comments Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:52:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to Walter Dnes for his interesting and helpful list of some of the tricks that HTML offers to spammers. One he didn't mention is the trick of using not only just HTML comments (valid) to br{!-- --}eak up key{!-- --}words but also the increasing practice of using comp{asdf}letely bo{xy z}gus HTML tags for similar purposes. Yeah, okay, I substituted characters... just so not to trigger spam detectors. :-) [snip] >> If they want "high quality" e-mail there are a whole variety of options, going well beyond HTML. One is to send .DOC files (which can be read with freeware viewers), another is Adobe PDF files. > These options are way worse than HTML. Yeah, but in exchange they're less likely to be [ab]used as often, and they DO unarguably yield much better control over final page layout. > ...Word documents are proprietary, and I don't know any program which can display them reliably except MS Word (and then only the same version which was used to write it). There are freeware word viewers for download for most platforms, and anyhow that's only one of several options. Point being that if you REALLY are concerned about "pretty" layout and absolute format control, there ARE better ways to achieve that. > PDF files assume a fixed page layout: My 21" monitor is capable of displaying a whole A4 page in a readble font size. a 17" monitor usually isnt, and a palmtop doesn't stand a chance. Again, sure. HTML was designed to display an 'appropriate' and meaningful result (even if not known to the sender) regardless of the displaying device. No surprise that it works well for that. But not everybody wants the bulk in exchange for the often-limited additional value (and VERY MUCH not justified risks) and they ought to be given the option of not accepting it. > Also, Word and PDF generally are a lot larger (even though HTML produced by editors is often extremely bloated). Absolutely. These should be used ONLY when *needed* (and they rarely are, for most folks). > I agree fully, that HTML is usually unnecessary and has little benefit over plain text, but suggesting the use of Word or PDF instead of it is replace one evil with an worse one. Thanks for the concurrence. Again, I'm only pointing out that if you MUST have fine control over appearance and formatting, any of a variety of technologies work better. (Hopefully, that's for RARE use on an when-needed basis). >> And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient. > For normal mail, I think that's a really stupid idea. Depends on the situation. For a newsletter going out to 150,000 people, I think it's a FINE idea. As much as I hate HTML-burdened E-mail, I'm *almost* leaning toward suggesting it to one of my clients... as an optional way to send nice-looking invoices and such with their graphic form overlay (the graphic form overlay would be a 'background image'). But a perhaps interesting alternative would be to put the invoice up as a file on a Web server somewhere, and send the user the hard-to-guess URL of 'their' invoice page. I agree that it's less interesting for casual users who thoughtlessly thought it might be cool to put one word of their email message in boldface or italics. > (It goes a bit into the direction of message/external-body or Bernstein's IM, but without automatic retrieval by the MUA, that's a sure way to get your e-Mail ignored). Such "automatic retrieval" tends to ignore the concerns and issues of people who prefer to read their E-mail offline, perhaps because they pay for their Internet connection by the minute. [Of course, by the same token, the flip side of that is that for the SAME reasons, they might PREFER to have the stuff just arrive in their E-mail, rather than having to reconnect to retrieve it later as a separate operation... concerns like that is part of why the control needs to rest in the hands of the recipient.] > It is feasible if the document at the URL meaningful outside of the context of the email (Like: "I wrote up the minutes of the last meeting. You can find them at $url"). Sure, that's one example where the HTML is probably better NOT embedded in the E-mail. [snip] > I wholeheartedly agree that unnecessary use of HTML in e-mail is stupid. I completely concur that HTML e-mail is generally a waste of bandwidth. Thanks for agreeing. :-) > However, as far as I can see these arguments over how technically awful HTML e-mail is are irrelevant to this list, because it's not going away and even if it did spam would just go back to being plain text. Spam going back to being plain text would reduce spam volume by probably 70% or more, and if spam represents 80% of the total E-mail load arriving at some ISPs, it's hard to claim that there's no value in achieving that. > (In fact, all the spam that's made it through my filters this week has been plain text.) Cool. I'm not going to ask you how achieved that, but I think that more and more ISPs (and perhaps corporations) are going to use similar kinds of strategies to filter out more and more of the HTML-burdened spam. [snip] > We can filter keywords, and spammer will avoid using those keywords. We can do IP blacklist, and spammer will avoid using those blacklist. We can ban HTML and spammer will start using plain text. etc etc. The nice part about them using plain text is that in one fell swoop, we've denied them A WHOLE RAFT of their deceptive tricks, and in a way that they're not likely going to find some new "creative" [ab]use of HTML that we hadn't envisioned and needed to block individually. Gives them very little 'wiggle room' to avoid the filtering. > So, either you have an adaptive (and thus fuzzy) solution or we need to think out of box. I think my solution IS thinking 'out of the box' (compared to the other more technically esoteric solutions I've seen bandied about). I see it as providing a fast, nearly guaranteed payback (both for ISPs and their customers) and without requiring a realistically speaking unattainable consensus. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 15:30:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16985 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MJUE402959 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAXW-0000le-MA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16980; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAXV-00059J-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAXP-00059G-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAXK-0000fP-3d; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:30:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAWf-0000eu-Q5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:29:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16966 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAWP-00058u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:29:05 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64] helo=sccrmhc13.attbi.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAWE-000581-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:28:54 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <20030622192703016009svnle>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:27:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Collected comments on spamming, permissions lists, et al Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <88F12A26-A4E7-11D7-A454-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:27:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Jun 22, 2003, at 14:55 US/Eastern, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > This is one reason why I usually MANUALLY insert a quote level > indicator only > just on the first line of a quoted paragraph... to prevent quote level > line size > creep on every line of quoted paragraphs. Learn to use a text editor. You're on a holy quest to get people to give up HTML e-mail, yet you yourself can't work out how to edit and quote text in a plain text e-mail? Is this some sort of comedy routine you're performing for our amusement? > But that's just my own convention which works for me. Obviously you > have the > right to choose differently. I choose not to read any more badly-formatted crap you send. Shape up or get killfiled. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 15:36:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17091 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MJaA903605 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAdF-0000w4-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17084; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAdE-0005AR-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAd9-0005AO-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAd6-0000pj-P4; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UAcp-0000pE-RO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:35:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17044 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAcZ-0005AD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:35:27 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55] helo=sccrmhc11.attbi.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UAcO-0005A0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:35:16 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <200306221934210110044od3e>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:34:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: mathew To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200306221717.h5MHHOrs021626@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: <8E8A0088-A4E8-11D7-A454-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:34:36 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, Jun 22, 2003, at 13:17 US/Eastern, Vernon Schryver wrote: > mathew : >> ... >> Yes, but it's also totally outside the purview of the ASRG, unless you >> think it is in some way an important enabler of spam. >> >> I wholeheartedly agree that unnecessary use of HTML in e-mail is >> stupid. I completely concur that HTML e-mail is generally a waste of >> bandwidth. However, as far as I can see these arguments over how >> technically awful HTML e-mail is are irrelevant to this list, because >> it's not going away and even if it did spam would just go back to >> being >> plain text. >> >> (In fact, all the spam that's made it through my filters this week has >> been plain text.) > > How much HTML spam did your filters reject before it got to your > mailbox? I don't know how much was rejected because it was HTML; I use SpamAssassin, and the HTML-ness is just one of many factors it weighs. > If HTML vs. spam spam is off-topic here, then so are all other > anti-spam > mechanisms that allow mail among strangers. They are all much less > then perfect and so by your criteria must be off topic: I did not say that anti-spam mechanisms which are imperfect are off-topic. I said that HTML e-mail is not necessary for spam to exist, and that rich text e-mail is not going to go away. Hence all your paragraphs of things which "must be off topic" are irrelevant straw-man examples. > Of course it is silly to talk about ISPs or any large organizations > filtering HTML by default. I'm glad you agree with me on that. > That does not imply that it would not be good and profitable to > write a BCP saying (among many other things): > > Filtering HTML mail from strangers is an effect spam defense and > should be considered a 1%-10% false positive rate can be tolerated. > Because some individuals and organizations do filter HTML mail > from strangers, you SHOULD NOT send HTML or mail involving > unnecessary MIME attachments to strangers. Like any and all spam > defenses that allow mail from strangers, filtering HTML mail is > only partially effective. I'm pretty sure nobody on the list is going to disagree with that either. > For base64 and quoted-printable--again, how do you expect people in > China to talk to each other if don't allow them to encode their > language > in what is still fundamentally a 7-bit ASCII, ANSI x3.-4, transport, > where ASCII stands for "American standard for character information > interchange" and does not even allow the English to talk about their > money? Yet another good reason why HTML and base64 aren't going away. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 18:14:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20761 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MMEO920810 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UD6O-0005PZ-0x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20699; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UD6K-0005n2-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UD6F-0005mz-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UD60-0005NU-Al; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UD5C-0005Mt-6t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:13:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20555 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:12:51 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UD4u-0005mX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:12:52 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UD4j-0005lp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:12:41 -0400 Received: (cpmta 16444 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 15:09:54 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 15:09:54 -0700 X-Sent: 22 Jun 2003 22:09:54 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:08:45 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:35:59 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:35:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Second, if spammers are unable to pull a lot of the tricks and deceptions that >they do at present, I believe that a lot of spam that presently "works" >economically will no longer be viable. > Please offer evidence. Take a large body of spam. Determine what percentage of the messages depend on obfuscation to make their sale. Be sure to separate out obfuscation for the purpose of avoiding filters from obfuscation for the purpose of fooling users. It matters little... if they can't obfuscate to avoid filters, and therefore get taken out by the filters, it doesn't matter whether they might or might not have tricked the user IF the spam had been delivered. > Consider whether their are alternative tricks they could play in text (e.g. http://www.ebay.com@192.168.1.80/foo is just as likely to fool most users as a "hidden" link url). Well, less, but I agree that SOME are still there. But it's a SUBSET. > I'm sure the results would be valuable to everyone on the list, whether or not they agree with your proposal. If someone here is interested in funding the detailed study, I'd be glad to carry it out. > You keep saying "I believe". I've responded with absolute numbers detailing how many users make active use of HTML. Well, yes and no. Your numbers are based upon a notion of what might or might not be "active use". It also doesn't address the issue of "degree of importance" or whether people (given the choice of "spam or [occasional] boldface" would still pick the boldface and accept the spam. So while your numbers provide one data point, I'm not convinced that they really represent anything very decisive. > A number of people have provided perfectly believable scenarios as to why a first-contact system won't work. I've been in the business long enough to see a **lot** of people present scenarios about why some new proposals "won't work". That's hardly new. Highly esteemed scientists used to insist that heavier-than-air flight isn't workable, either. Clearly, for whatever reason, they were wrong. > Present your counter scenario. Explain how the system will work in detail, not in vague terms. The reason the terms are fairly vague is because there are a large number of implementation choices that can be made in a variety of ways. Turning the knobs and tweaking the controls is something that gets done during implementation, according to the needs and desires of the client paying for the work. There is no NEED to develop one fixed and rigid scenario ahead of time. Indeed, that's part of the advantage of this approach. > I've suggested that you haven't thought through the architecture requirements of your system. I don't think there ARE much in the way of basic "architectural" requirements which are anything much more than trivial. I don't put a lot more stock in your "suggestions" than you seem to put in my "beliefs". :-) > The proper response would be to write up an architecture document and do some research. I'd be glad to do that if somebody would like to fund the project. Many of you other folks here may be salaried, but I'm not, unfortunately. > You claim to have extensive experience with that kind of thing. Yup. I've been involved in various kinds of product development for a LONG time. > P.S. And cut with the innuendo about people who disagree with you *wanting* spam to not get solved. That's pure crap, No, what's crap is misrepresenting what I said. Please don't misquote me (even by suggestion). Thanks (in advance). > The reason you're getting pushback is because people *also* want an internet which is easy and powerful to use for everyone--not just techies. There's NOTHING technically exotic or hard-to-understand about what I propose. Making it "easy and powerful to use" is purely a matter of design choices made during the implementation and integration with existing systems, but is hardly rocket science. > You don't think your screwing that up. We do. I take it that's the "royal we". Sorry, anyhow, I don't agree. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 18:29:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21122 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MMT9m22437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UDKf-0005po-JQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21118; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UDKb-0005rK-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UDKW-0005rH-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UDKX-0005jc-DQ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UDJw-0005jL-47 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:28:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21114 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:28:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UDJt-0005rD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:28:21 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UDJi-0005r3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:28:10 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (external)) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:27:20 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <8E8A0088-A4E8-11D7-A454-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: <8E8A0088-A4E8-11D7-A454-000393CAA6AA@pobox.com> (meta@pobox.com's message of "Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:34:36 -0400") Message-ID: <84y8zt4um4.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:26:11 +0100 mathew writes: [...] > Yet another good reason why HTML and base64 aren't going away. Indeed. If users are unhappy with text/plain (and want bold, italics, etc., reflowing paragraphs and so on), then we've already got a non-HTML solution: text/enriched, rfc1896. But let's be realistic: we're stuck with HTML. The best we can hope for is to get software producers to default javascript to off, and similarly for retrieving remote URIs (so we can stop webbugs from working). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 19:49:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22081 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5MNnEM28625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UEaA-0007RA-Py for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22061; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UEa8-00065A-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UEa3-000657-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UEZw-0007OX-Sy; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UEZX-0007OK-Vp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:48:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22053 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UEZH-00064v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:48:19 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UEZ6-00064s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:48:08 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5MNleLV018352 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:47:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306222347.h5MNleLV018352@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea References: <84y8zt4um4.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:47:40 -0600 (MDT) > From: Bruce Stephens > ... > Indeed. If users are unhappy with text/plain (and want bold, italics, > etc., reflowing paragraphs and so on), then we've already got a > non-HTML solution: text/enriched, rfc1896. What common MUA's can generate or even display RFC 1896 rich text? > But let's be realistic: we're stuck with HTML. The best we can hope > for is to get software producers to default javascript to off, and > similarly for retrieving remote URIs (so we can stop webbugs from > working). That is realistic, but we could also hope to get software producers to turn off HTML by default, or at least until the user asks for some formatting. That hope, very faint as it is, is less unrealistic than hoping that the same software producers will include support for CR/CRIs, RMX, or about anything else that they are not already supporting. Turning off HTML until the user asks for formatting would not cause user consternation, unlike including spam rejection facilities. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 20:23:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22527 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N0Mmc31406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:22:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UF6d-0008AT-UI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:22:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22518; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UF6b-0006AG-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:22:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UF6W-00069u-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:22:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UF4v-000833-Nb; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UF46-00082l-JU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:20:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22494 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UF3p-00069O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:19:53 -0400 Received: from dns.novitraq.com ([204.92.85.2] helo=novitraq.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UF3e-00069H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:19:42 -0400 Received: from kensington (kensington [204.92.85.4]) by novitraq.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/2.3.0.1402) id NVTRD744799E for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:16:02 -0400 From: "Elric Pedder" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting Organization: Novitraq Inc Message-ID: <000001c3391d$26603560$04555ccc@kensington> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200306210449.h5L4nBAI007729@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Hops: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:19:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Vernon Schryver > Sent: June 21, 2003 00:49 > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting > > From: Elric Pedder > > > ... > > If only a hash of the triplet were stored, would this solve > > the privacy issue? > > No. Consider a "dictionary attack." If you have a copy of > the database and want to know if Steve Case sent Bill Gates > a message, you hash those two addresses with a likely IP address > and see if you can get a hit in the database. If you do not know > the exact IP address, you can guess it is one of a few thousand > (or at most a billion) and make the corresponding few thousand > (or billion) probes of your copy of the database. Like a > dictionary attack on /etc/passwd, this attack may not be quick, > but it is effective. I see what you mean. I was thinking of the privacy issue from the perspective of creating new information rather than verifying that something occurred. What about a weaker hash? Such as MD5 reduced to 16 bits? It would depend on the volume of mail you received, but I guess at some point the weaker the hash the more false positives you'll hit -- probably before the necessary privacy level is reached. I'm interested in this element as other possible methods may also involve recording the SMTP envelope and the privacy issues will always come up. Regardless, I'm not an advocate of greylisting. I agree with the points you and others have made and the most significant is that it has a relatively short life span. However it is one of the more interesting solutions to appear recently. Best regards, - Elric -- Elric Pedder Mailtraq Development (www.mailtraq.com) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 20:40:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22816 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N0eAb00720 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UFNS-0000BX-65 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22803; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFNP-0006Dg-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFNK-0006Dd-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UFNJ-00008L-Fi; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UFMg-00007n-1l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:39:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22791 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFMd-0006DL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:39:19 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFMS-0006DI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:39:09 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5N0d3Q0008753 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:39:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306230039.h5N0d3Q0008753@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting References: <000001c3391d$26603560$04555ccc@kensington> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:39:03 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Elric Pedder" > ... > Regardless, I'm not an advocate of greylisting. I agree with > the points you and others have made and the most significant is > that it has a relatively short life span. However it is one of > the more interesting solutions to appear recently. I agree with the last sentence, but not all of the rest. Others have reported that similar tactics are around 30% effective. The high effectiveness reported here might be because, as was said, the high rate included dictionary attacks. You'd expect dictionary attack spam to be particularly likely to be "hit-and-run." My random guess is that should it become popular, its effectiveness will drop from 30% to 10-20%, because it will ever become universal and many spammers blocked by it will choose to send to more addresses than go to the substantial trouble to send to the same targets through the same open proxies. If I'm right, 10-20% is nothing to sneeze at, and is as good as or better than the realistic prospects of several other, purely theoretical spam defenses whose advocates promise us more. Note that greylisting can be seen as a variety of quarantine mechanism. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 21:15:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23389 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N1FFl04264 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UFvP-00016h-NV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23378; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFvN-0006N5-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFvH-0006N2-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UFvA-00013f-TR; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:15:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UFuT-00012H-2r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:14:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23366 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFuB-0006Mg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:13:59 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UFu0-0006Md-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:13:49 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2474019; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:13:17 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: gep2@terabites.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:12:52 -0400 Several of my messages that you have replied to were NOT sent to the list. They contains statements which I made specifically because I knew they were NOT being posted in a list context. Since you don't seem capable of following basic email etiquette, I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that you will not be receiving any further email from me. (And thank goodness, I won't have to read any more of the email you insist in sending out in your format, ignoring the formatting preferences of all your recpients--how ironic.) Warning to list members. Do not reply to gep2 unless you wish to have your words made public. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 22:12:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23989 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N2CB308814 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGoV-0002Hy-M6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23971; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGoS-0006XY-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGoM-0006XU-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGoL-0002Dz-He; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGnf-0002Dg-3O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:11:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23961 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGnN-0006XK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:11:01 -0400 Received: from 000-248-436.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.210.25] helo=68.27.210.25) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGnB-0006XH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:10:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622221010.00b9cc08@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:10:11 -0400 At 02:22 AM 6/22/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>>>>Plain ASCII text will continue to be delivered as before. > > >>You have mentioned before that even if only ASCII spam is being delivered > >that will reduce the overall bandwidth consumer. HOWEVER, that will not > >reduce the total number of spam items in someone's inbox. > >First, people's inbox capacity is never (in my experience) limited by >number of >messages... always by number of megabytes. End users care much more about the number of messages they have to delete, than number of megabytes the inbox takes especially in the age of large hard drives and broadband connections. >Second, if spammers are unable to pull a lot of the tricks and deceptions >that >they do at present, I believe that a lot of spam that presently "works" >economically will no longer be viable. Agreed but the very nature of spam has nothing to do with HTML tricks - it has to do with "how spammers amplify their distribution channels while keeping costs nearly at zero" in Barry Shain's words. I think that we had plenty of arguments both ways, and both camps are staying were they are. I would suggest that either you or someone else, write up a BCP or RFC, plus create some working code and get back to the group. Not that I am advocating the banning of HTML, but there are plenty of people that are and it is important to get stuff past theory into practical useable code. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 22:17:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24101 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N2HBt09770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGtL-0002XV-C0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24092; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGtI-0006ZA-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGtC-0006Z7-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGtB-0002UP-97; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGsJ-0002SW-JA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:16:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24086 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGsG-0006Yw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:16:04 -0400 Received: from 000-248-436.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.210.25] helo=68.27.210.25) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGs4-0006Yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:15:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622221032.00ba0eb0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Walter Dnes , ASRG list From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <20030621234539.A6723@m433> References: <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:15:28 -0400 At 11:45 PM 6/21/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 07:33:49PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote >[..] > > > Anyhow, this all starts with whether it's possible to write a piece > > of software which begins to scan the net for infected systems? > > The problem so far is that people take virus/trojan compromises too >lightly. That's because the compromises go out of their way not to be >noticed. The trojan sends out a bunch of spams from your machine while >you're sleeping. The typical end-user reaction is "so what?". Maybe >governments need to do a "Hatch-job" (senator from Utah?). > > Notice that almost all viruses/trojans are "intelligent parasites" >that don't eat up enough resources to kill their hosts. What we need is >for governments to authorize law-enforcement agencies to release viruses >("Killer-V's") that low-level unformat harddrives, and flash BIOSes with >garbage for good measure so that you can't just slap in the install CD >and have the same crap reconnected to the net 3 hours later. Wow wow - hold on there. How will we distinguish between "government viruses" and malicious ones? Who decides which law enforcement agency is authorized to do so? What will stop lets say China from sending out viruses to low format hard drives of protestors? You are opening a whole can of worms here - we cannot serously use viruses to fight viruses, this possibility has been discussed in a research paper on Warhol net-wise viruses a while back - what you will end up with is a bunch of viruses fighting each other and getting better and better, while our computers and the Internet breaks in to shambles. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 22:58:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23988 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N2CBg08800 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGoV-0002Hr-I4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23970; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGoS-0006Xb-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGoM-0006XV-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGoL-0002E7-TE; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UGnf-0002Dl-Jy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:11:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23963 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGnN-0006XN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:11:01 -0400 Received: from 000-248-436.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.210.25] helo=68.27.210.25) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UGnB-0006XG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:10:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622220432.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:10:07 -0400 At 07:33 PM 6/20/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 20, 2003 at 18:10 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > So your bottom line is that the spam problem is based on "how spammers > > amplify their distribution channels while keeping costs nearly at zero." > >I propose that if that is removed (or seriously diminished) the >problem will become mostly inconsequential and can then be dealt with >more in the manner of "consenting communications" via various methods, >mostly MUA, routinely mentioned here. >[..] >Let's start easy. > >We've seen various blacklists. I consider them a mostly bad idea, >perhaps of some use to individuals, but it's something we should all >be familiar with. > >Some of the more notorious black lists actively scanned the net with >software for systems which fit their notion of "open relays" and would >add these to the net as a hazard. > >Now, would it be possible to scan similarly for systems infected with >Jeem or one of the other spammer slave bugs? > >What would we do with that information? > >That's probably not necessary to answer, unless someone doubts >anything good could be done. But, for example, inform the owner, an >ISP might quarantine or mail rate-limit a known infected computer >until it's fixed, block it entirely (from mail, from everything), etc. This is something that Dshield.org is already doing - people are submitting their firewall logs, and when enough evidence accumulates that an infested computer is present, his ISP is informed. >Also, could these viruses be used as honeypots to gather information >about who is using them for both evidence and to just get those perps >shut down and/or blocked? > >Anyhow, this all starts with whether it's possible to write a piece of >software which begins to scan the net for infected systems? I don't >know enough about these specific viruses right now to answer that >question: Do they use hard to guess passwords? Do they give failure >indications on use of a bad passwd which identifies the infection, or >listen on a specific port, etc? I do not know if such scanner is possible since its behavior maybe be though off as malicious since it will be using and scanning the same ports that viruses are. >Maybe we should also issue an RFC that simply says that the days of >computer, including personal and desktop computer, operating systems >being vulnerable to viruses (within some problem definition) should >have been over years ago via widely distributed and well-known >techniques utilized in highly successful and comparable operating >systems software. > >As such, any operating system which does not meet a minimum standard >of being viral resistant (obviously some detail is needed here) and is >connected to the internet is non-conformant to RFC XYZZY or however >that's usually worded and is a potential hazard to the net at large. >[..] And do we seriously think that Microsoft would care about some RFC? When was the last time Microsoft cared about an Internet standard when its not in their interest? Take the HTML example and the various related discussions as to changing the default MUA behavior as per HTML. What might actually force Microsoft to make their OS more secure is increased competition from Linux and other Unixes. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 23:28:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25203 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N3SFx15271 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UI07-0003yE-9x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25196; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UI05-0006pj-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UHzz-0006pg-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UHzt-0003wL-JM; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UHza-0003w5-Ab for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:27:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25183 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UHzJ-0006pZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:27:25 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UHz8-0006pQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:27:14 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5N3Qgf3008033 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:26:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306230326.h5N3Qgf3008033@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622221010.00b9cc08@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:26:42 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich >... > Agreed but the very nature of spam has nothing to do with HTML tricks - it > has to do with "how spammers amplify their distribution channels while > keeping costs nearly at zero" in Barry Shain's words. You keep saying variations on that but I think they are wrong. Spam itself may have nothing to do with HTML tricks, but the spam problem does. The spam problem involves junk in our mailboxes, and HTML is the most important tool of spammers trying to get their stuff into our mailboxes past our mechanical and manual filters. Do you use an HTML-enabled mailer? I bet you do, because you would otherwise not be so cavalier about the games spammers play with HTML. HTML-enabled mailers make spam look far more presentable. Even many spammers would be too ashamed to send it if they could see how bad it looks. Without HTML to hide the up to 99.9% of noise added to the real text to try to evade filters, it would look fraudulent to everyone. > I think that we had plenty of arguments both ways, and both camps are > staying were they are. I would suggest that either you or someone else, > write up a BCP or RFC, plus create some working code and get back to the > group. Not that I am advocating the banning of HTML, but there are plenty > of people that are and it is important to get stuff past theory into > practical useable code. The working code already exists and is wide use. I think other people have said that standard SpamAssassin penalized mail in HTML. It's trivial to write a Procmail recipe that rejects HTML mail or to modify a recipe that rejects by character sets named in SMTP or MIME entity headers to reject "text/html". If HTML issue is dropped, will you promise to be try as hard to squelch talk of even more hopeless efforts? Getting Microsoft to turn on HTML in Outlook only when the user asks for formatting seems more promising than getting Microsoft to add CR support to Outlook or changing the terms and conditions for the use of Hotmail to prohibit sending from any except Hotmail SMTP clients and so make RMX meaningful. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 22 23:50:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25657 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N3oBY17813 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UILL-0004dE-Ka for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25649; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UILJ-0006un-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UILD-0006uk-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UILB-0004aC-Oj; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UIL8-0004Zk-QI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:49:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25644 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UIKr-0006uV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:49:41 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UIKg-0006uJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:49:30 -0400 Received: (cpmta 12741 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 20:49:00 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 20:49:00 -0700 X-Sent: 23 Jun 2003 03:49:00 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:47:09 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:14:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Collected comments on spamming, permissions lists, et al To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:14:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>I suspect that the larger outfits will come onboard slower, perhaps >>kicking and >>screaming (despite the fact that THEY will have the most to gain by doing so). >Really? So they have absolutely no idea what's good for themselves >and their customers? Odd that they are in business. Corporate inertia is an unfortunate thing, sometimes. >>If we don't have to worry about E-mail bulk, then we're mostly >>wasting our time here. >>The lawsuits that HAVE been placed against spammers by large ISPs usually are >>predicated precisely on the fact that the spam wastes ISP resources and costs >>them a significant amount of money. >Which of those lawsuits complained that the messages were too big? The lawsuits have typically needed to put a dollar figure on the damages, and generally they do that in terms of volume, which has a direct and quantifiable dollar cost associated with it. I'll try to snare some of these articles as I see them go by. >>...For these people, it is >>highly annoying to get an E-mail that includes text-image fetches from Web >>servers and other forms of Web bugs in it. >Absolutely. But solving that problem doesn't require removing HTML >email does it? Perhaps not, although removing HTML tags from the mail does solve it. >And go look at the numbers I posted. Note the number >of messages with and without image tags and with and without >attachments. The majority of HTML email does not have external image >tags. *That* particular problem is pretty much restricted to >spammers and (even more so) commercial bulk mailers like Amazon and >other companies. And if you think they are going to buy into the >idea that they are going to get a bounce message the first time their >customer forgets to whitelist them (which will be most of the time), >I think you are very mistaken. I don't dispute that there will be some [very] minor inconveniences while the system is coming up to speed and consumers are getting used to it. I think that is going to be true of basically *anything* that involves a change, IF that change in fact makes a difference. I believe that the payback will be very much worth the temporary adjustements. I still do contend that sending HTML-burdened E-mail in a 'first contact' is a very poor strategy, and that the recipient should have the choice of whether they wish to allow their limited Inbox space to be consumed that way. >>> Unfortunately, restricting email content type seems unlikely to have >>any long-term impact on spam, as the spammers will simply adapt their >>behavior to whatever content type is most likely to get their message >>across. >>That claim is self-contradictory. If spammers change their behavior >>to send out >>plain ASCII text spam messages, since that is the only type certain to get >>through from previously unknown senders, then we *have* had a long-term impact >>on spam... if _nothing_ else, by reducing its volume by 70% or more. >If you search the archives, you'll see that we had the volume >discussion a while back. The vast majority of the respondents felt >that volume was *not* an issue. It is the PRIMARY ongoing element in the cost of handling spam E-mail messages. >In fact, if you do some analysis, I >believe you will find that the majority of the volume of email comes >not from HTML, but from attachments (word docs, powerpoint >presentations, pictures of the kids...). While 10 1k messages become >10 4k HTML messages. The first attachment that comes in dwarfs them >all. That volume is FINE, *if* it's stuff that the recipients *want*. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 01:23:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27115 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N5NLj25197 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UJnU-0006YK-Uq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27100; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UJnR-0007Ef-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UJnM-0007Ec-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UJnB-0006WQ-C5; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UJmM-0006Qc-7A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:22:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27075 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UJmJ-0007Dt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:22:07 -0400 Received: from 000-259-061.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.251.236] helo=68.27.251.236) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UJm7-0007Da-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:21:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623012113.00b5afc8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:21:14 -0400 At 09:26 PM 6/22/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > >From: Yakov Shafranovich >[..] >Do you use an HTML-enabled mailer? I bet you do, because you would >otherwise not be so cavalier about the games spammers play with HTML. For the record, I use Eudora which is not HTML friendly and I made sure to have HTML disabled. You can search the archives and you will not find any HTML posts from me. >[..] > > I think that we had plenty of arguments both ways, and both camps are > > staying were they are. I would suggest that either you or someone else, > > write up a BCP or RFC, plus create some working code and get back to the > > group. Not that I am advocating the banning of HTML, but there are plenty > > of people that are and it is important to get stuff past theory into > > practical useable code. > >The working code already exists and is wide use. I think other >people have said that standard SpamAssassin penalized mail in HTML. >It's trivial to write a Procmail recipe that rejects HTML mail or >to modify a recipe that rejects by character sets named in SMTP or >MIME entity headers to reject "text/html". Reread Gordon's original proposal - he is not simply proposing blocking HTML email - he is proposing creating a tracking system where the receiver can grant permission to the sender to send HTML email ONCE the initial ASCII email got through. This permission code is not a trivial Procmail recipe, and I have not seen a working copy of it yet. The fact is that people are blocking HTML email currently and will be doing so. Now if Gordon and you, and others, want to preach blocking HTML, then do something about it. That's my point - the discussions have gone long enough, every one expressed their opinions, now its time to do something practical about it. Perhaps even create a central code repository with patches and instructions for major email clients, similar to the efforts of the Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org/) - you can call it the "Email Standards Project" perhaps. Maybe even a compliance program with logos, etc. The possibilities are endless. >If HTML issue is dropped, will you promise to be try as hard to squelch >talk of even more hopeless efforts? Its a research group - everyone is entitled to their opinions. I do not think blocking HTML is hopeless - I don't think that anyone in the group has argued that blocking HTML does not have SOME benefit - the question is only how big is that benefit is, and whether it outweighs the costs. > Getting Microsoft to turn on HTML >in Outlook only when the user asks for formatting seems more promising I don't think that Microsoft is budging anytime soon to do anything that does not correspond with their own interests. Plus, even if they do so, the damage has already been done - the installed user base is very large. >than getting Microsoft to add CR support to Outlook or changing the >terms and conditions for the use of Hotmail to prohibit sending from >any except Hotmail SMTP clients and so make RMX meaningful. For the record, I had never advocated getting Microsoft to add C/R support for Outlook. C/R systems are coming into wider use, I do not advocate for or against their use, however once they are present I am just trying to make sure that they are inter-operable - that's why I am collaborating with Eric Dean on the CRI protocol. This is a research group - we are looking at everything under the sun and I am glad that all these issues are coming up. Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 01:40:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27442 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N5dmG29113 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:39:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UK3Q-0007ZU-O8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:39:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27429; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK3N-0007Is-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:39:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK3I-0007Ip-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:39:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UK2f-0007W8-N9; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UK2P-0007V9-Sl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:38:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27372 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK2M-0007I5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:38:42 -0400 Received: from 000-259-061.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.251.236] helo=68.27.251.236) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK24-0007Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:38:27 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623013615.00b37e68@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Possible Changes in ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:37:56 -0400 From IAB minutes for the May 13th, 2003, meeting (http://www.iab.org/IABmins/IABmins.2003-05-13.html): "IRTF The IRTF chair reported receiving a number of concerns and complaints about the state of ASRG, and is looking into modifying the RG management to address them. " _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 01:46:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27564 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N5kAq30000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UK9a-0007nn-Cg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27553; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK9X-0007Kt-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK9R-0007Kq-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UK9S-0007lS-61; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UK9M-0007lH-9d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:45:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27549 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK94-0007Km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:45:38 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UK8s-0007Kc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:45:27 -0400 Received: (cpmta 6502 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 22:45:00 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 22:45:00 -0700 X-Sent: 23 Jun 2003 05:45:00 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:43:18 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:10:33 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] "more readable" To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:10:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>>>HTML is not, and has never been, a precise or deterministic page layout >>If I had wanted my words quoted on ASRG, I would have cc'd ASRG. >That was a message sent directly to you. As is this. Have the >courtesy to treat it as such. I'm not interested in having private off-list discussions on this topic, unless there is some specific reason for sensitivity requiring that privacy. My time is valuable enough that I'm not going to waste it in one-on-one messaging with people who probably aren't interested in my ideas to begin with. The people I'm trying to reach with my ideas are those who might be interested in actually making use of them, not those just interested in wasting my time. Accordingly, unless you get an agreement with me otherwise, please expect this discussion to take place here. >>Personally, I think that most users are educable. We ought to give them the >>information they need to make good choices. >Wonderful in theory. But they "give them lots of options" solution >does not work in the real world. In practice, I think that most users will probably want and use a few straightforward options. That's why, for starters, I think the idea of giving them the choices of HTML (yes/no), Attachments (yes/no), and Encoding (yes/no) are a good start. As we have discussed, there are various more detailed options available from there (sublevels of HTML, types of attachments, etc) which could be made available for users desiring that added control. There could be another option, which would be spam content filtering (yes/no), also based on whether the recipient is 'known' or not, which would also allow an ISP to use filtering for mail from unknown/untrusted senders but would largely eliminate the problems of false positives in mail from trusted (and named) senders. While some degree of content filtering could probably be offered at the ISP, I've tended to think that content filtering is generally better done at the recipient end, where choices can be made more readily... although lately I've started thinking that (especially in conjunction with my permission-list concept) there might be a place for at least some of that at the ISP level (perhaps in addition to local recipient-level content filtering). >>>And when I change ISPs and everyone's email to me bounces? >>First off, only mail violating your stated permissions bounces (as it should). >>Presumably your system could maintain (or download) a (local copy?) >>list of your >>own permissions for each of your known/trusted senders. When moving to a new >>ISP, presuming that they offer a similar permissions list feature, you could >>upload your permissions list to "seed" the new ISP's filters. Of >>course, if the >>new ISP doesn't offer such a feature, you'll probably start getting more and >>larger spam/viruses/trojans again. :-(( >This is when you start waving your hands. That's because this is where individual implementation design decisions enter into the way things might work. There's no need (and in fact, perhaps the opposite is true) to establish fixed one-size-fits-all characteristics and operating details. >You claimed your solution was simple. Here is clear proof that it isn't. I disagree. >Stop making vague >assertions and sit down and figure out what it will take to make your >solution as easy to use as the current email system (or at least >within an order of magnitude). Write it up. *Then* see if anyone >buys your solution. I'll be glad to do a more detailed system design spec and more detailed implementation proposals for someone interested in funding the work. Sorry, I'm not interested in furnishing elaborate and DETAILED blueprints for free. I have other demands on my time too, and bills to pay. Many of those of you on salary probably have the luxury to do things differently. As it is, I've been taking a lot of time I could be spending in other areas to try to contribute to the discussion here. >>>Or when RIAA comes calling and asks for a list of everyone I may have >>>sent an MP3 to? >>Anybody can ask for anything they like. Doesn't mean you have to give it to >>them. >Excuse me? Where have you been for the past 10 years? On the >contrary. Your ISP is required by law to provide the information. >Just ask Verizon. They CAN be required to furnish information. In the Verizon case, it was in response to a court order, and followed an appeal. In this particular case under discussion, that of my proposed permissions list (sender/addressee address pairs, and permitted attachment types for each pair) there's nothing really there which isn't already present (or which couldn't be inferred) by the incoming and outgoing mail logs already kept by the ISP (and yeah, I know that some countries are more or less demaning about how long those logs must be kept). If the courts take a HARD interest in what you've done online, they can get a search warrant to seize and search your computer(s), too. Which would give them A GREAT DEAL MORE INFORMATION about your activities online, so I don't see the permissions list as a major loss of privacy, presuming that the ISP is as responsible with it as they already presumably are with mail logs etc. >>If they get a court order allowing them to seize and examine your computer >>(and/or the mail logs from your ISP) then there's probably a lot more evidence >But your ISP doesn't have to, and almost certainly does not, keep a >copy of your email logs. Your system *requires* keeping information. No, not a copy of your E-mails, but they most likely keep a copy of their mail server logs (messages in, messages delivered, from/to/IP, etc). >>...(which probably wouldn't indicate, anyhow, what TYPE of attachments you'd >Would it? I don't know. You haven't provided a specification. Sorry about that. Again, detailed blueprints require some work, and that's usually not free. >>>You mother bounces email from your aunt. >>First of all, since she presumably has had an ongoing correspondence with the >>aunt, she probably already has the appropriate permissions set, so that the >>aunt's mail doesn't bounce. >Every correspondence has to start somewhere. They can't all be >pre-existing. Your mother gives your aunt her email address over the >phone. Three months later the aunt gets email and sends her a >message. Pretty typical scenario. Yup, no problem. >>>The mail to your aunt (with the latest >> >pictures of the grandkids) didn't get through. The instructions tell >> >her not to send HTML the first time. She doesn't know what that >> >means (trust me, I've tried to explain the situation to *lots* of >> >email users). >>If the accompanying instructions (whether in the return E-mail, or in the >>suggested Web site it contains a URL pointer to) is good enough, then most >>people will be able to understand and deal with the problem. >That's very easy for you to say. (And I see a wonderful opportunity >here for spammers to fake these messages, but that's an aside.) I've >had to explain this kind of thing to non-technical users. Have you? Of course. As a computer consultant, I deal with users all the time, at all levels of technical expertise from guru to appalling ignorance. >...Furthermore, they are not going to see the need. Every Internet user I've spoken with understands that spam is a problem, and wants to see something done about it. >Here, let me give you a typical (and I mean typical, I get these all >the time) customer support call based on your system. >Hello? >Yes, I can't send email. >I see. What did it say? >It said it couldn't send the mail. >I see. What said it? >The message I got back. >I see. Do you have a copy of the message? >No, I deleted it. >Who were you sending email to? >xxx@foo.com >Can you send email to anyone else? >I don't know >.. ANY system which results in blocking unwanted or unapproved types of mails (spf, contents scanning, whatever) will result (at least initially) in questions about what happened and why. It will be **far** more easy to explain to users that "you sent an attachment, and your intended recipient hasn't (yet?) set their E-mail permissions to allow your E-mail address to send them attachments" than to try to explain to them more esoteric stuff about reverse DNS lookups and unsecured mail relays and the techhie stuff of the sort that other proposals discussed here have been based upon. The system I proposed works FAR more in tune with things that (even unsophisticated) end-users are likely to be able to understand (perhaps after some educational process and familiarization, but to some degree that's inevitable no matter WHAT we come up with). >I'm not kidding. That's how customer support goes. They don't >*read* the error messages. It's all magic. It's all confusing. >They have no idea which parts are important and which are not. They >don't know what to ignore. Writing software for the average user is >incredibly difficult. You and I, we're used to things. When >something goes wrong, we know in a second what to look at. We know >which part of the message is important, which should be ignored. >Most people have absolutely no idea. I agree with you that the design of the system needs to be designed to be as user-friendly as possible, but I don't believe that's impossible (or even terribly difficult, actually) to do. >>> She calls up your mother. She can't help, >>But she CAN, since if aunt calls mother, it would be a SIMPLE matter >>for mother >>to set aunt's permissions to allow sending mother the desired attachment. End >>of problem... simple, quick, straightforward. >When you've presented the design of the software, and how it's going >to be implemented by the dozens of email clients on different >platforms. Then I can decide if you are right. I've already proposed one example a few messages ago about one (possibly multi-level) transition scenario. See the archives if you missed it. >But the burden of proof is on your side. I don't expect to get everyone (100.00%) to agree (on ANYTHING). That's like herding cats. My hopes are that SOME will be interested enough by my ideas that they'll give 'em some serious thought, and hopefully see the value in them. I'd be glad to elaborate them further (hopefully in response to a specific and suitably funded project) and even perhaps proceed to software development, systems integration, and installation/documentation/training etc should someone be that interested. > To me, it looks hard. I disagree. >Start at the very >beginning. Who is going to tell her about the bounce and all those >rules. Go back to the archives and review my recent post about one or two proposed transition-period approaches. >She installs the latest version of Outlook Express and it >suddenly starts doing this. How does she know about it? Do you >think she reads the readme file? Presumably she will read the E-mail in her inbox. >>You're talking about costs to the ISP, and I'll point out that *none* of the >>proposals I've seen here (spf, et al)... other than mine... have been about >>significantly reducing overall bandwidth costs to the ISP. What >>everyone seems >>to think appropriate is adding additional layers of overhead to SMTP, DNS, etc >>etc. which ONLY increases total bandwidth used. >Actually, Barry wants bulk mailers (spam or otherwise) to pay the ISP >for their email delivery. I don't think that's going to fly, if for no other reason than free non-profit community-of-interest mailing lists (such as Yahoogroups et al). Originally, the argument made for offering outWATS service was that something like 80-90% of the cost of long distance telephone calls was the cost of billing you for them. Supposedly, as the argument went at the time (back in mid-late 1970's) the telcos were going to just disconnect all the billing and accounting stuff from those outgoing WATS lines and pass the cost savings on to flat-rate callers. Somehow that fell through the cracks (until just recently, when we're finally getting around to a few companies planning to offer actual "free" nationwide long distance to residential customers for a flat monthly charge.) Anyhow, this is another case like that... where the complexity and costs added due to the accounting and charging scheme have to ultimately be borne by SOMEBODY and the resulting system isn't likely to please much of anybody, and probably be a lot worse than what it replaced. >I have a friend at one of the legit mail >houses, and she went around to a number of ISPs seeing if they liked >that idea--none of them did. Of course not. I don't think most users would be happy about it, either. >But ask Barry if he thinks changing messages from HTML to text is >going to solve his problem. I don't think that it is by itself a magic bullet, no. I do think, however, that (along with control over unexpected attachments, and possibly content scanning of the residual E-mail) it is a big and important step in returning control over their inbox back to the recipient... the person who is paying for it, and the person who is inconvenienced when their inbox overflows and blocks further incoming (often very important) mail. >If you're trying to help the ISPs--why haven't any of them supported your idea? Haven't discussed it with them yet (at least not directly, I don't know how many of them might be lurking here). I first proposed my permissions list idea (here, at least) just about a week ago (a little bit earlier over on the spf-discuss list) and so to expect people to jump (publicly!) on the bandwagon that soon is fairly unrealistic. Also, even if one or more of them ARE lurking here and maybe are or will be setting in motion a plan to implement something like what I propose, (or even just to discuss it at their inhouse strategy meetings)... since the result is one of those "competitive advantage" type of things, I wouldn't expect expect them to trumpet their interest publicly until they're ready to actually announce something. >>Besides, as I think I've made VERY obvious, spam will be DRAMATICALLY reduced >>(at least relative to without it!) by use of my permissions list... certainly >You have made no such thing obvious. In fact numerous people have >disagreed with you. I've asked you for evidence of your belief--you >haven't even tried to provide it. This has been discussed many times, go back and look over the archives for more details. FACT 1: Either spammers change to plain ASCII text E-mails or they don't. FACT 2: If they do, their spams will typically be something like 70% smaller (and sometimes A LOT MORE than that, depending on how much pure-bulk-HTML-based-obfuscation they added before). FACT 3: If they don't, their spams will be blocked by the default "no HTML-burdened mail from unknown/untrusted sender" policy. Further, if they DO change to plain ASCII text E-mails, their mails will become easier and faster for content filters to deal with (and flatly preventing them from creating some new HTML-based strategem for avoiding the filtering), reducing the residual still further. Their at-least-somewhat reduced (due to no HTML, no scripting, etc) ability to deceive in such E-mails also puts another rock in the path of the spammers being profitable, which is also likely to discourage at least SOME of them. So, now, which of those three FACTs do you still pretend you disagree with, and why? >>and probably both. As a side benefit, the permissions list approach >>would take >>a HUGE bite out of viruses/worms/trojans, too... which spf et al would almost >How do you figure that? Most viruses spread through address books. >If someone is in your address book, then you've almost certainly >communicated with them, in which case they'll clearly accept HTML >mail from you. Right, but you probably don't accept attachments from the great majority of them (and if we implemented the further attachment-TYPE sublevel permissions, you probably accept executable attachment types from even fewer still). And your point anyhow is a bogus one, at least in MY case, since none of the people *I* correspond with are likely to have their permission list set to allow *me* to send them HTML-burdened E-mail. I just don't do that. Likewise, a lot of the (often larger) senders that many people get mail from regularly (Yahoogroups lists, newsletters, mailing lists like this one) are not HTML-burdened so those senders wouldn't have to be set to allow HTML, either. So your "you've almost certainly communicated with them, in which case they'll clearly accept HTML mail from you" is simply wrong. >>I don't think ANYBODY can with a straight face pretend that HTML hasn't been >>increasingly employed by spammers to "trick up" their E-mails to try >>to evade or >>confuse filters put up to try to defend against it (as well as to try to >>obfuscate the guilty parties, to try to make it harder for most recipients to >>know who they should send their complaints to.) >Evade filters. Yes. Confuse users? Yes for some illegal scams. >But I seriously doubt that the majority of the spam out there uses >that technique. Please provide numbers. Sorry, that request goes beyond our "free support level". :-) >>>You offer absolutely no evidence that convinces that removing >> >HTML email would have any impact at all on spammers. >>I'll comment that NOBODY here has offered "proof" that ANYTHING that's been >>proposed here would have "any impact at all" on spammers. >On the contrary. Payment systems clearly could have an impact on >spam. Is "could" your evasion, rather than "would"? Anyhow, provide "proof". You're the one who seems to want "proof". I claim that the FACTS numbered above are pretty clear and unarguable. Either way, I think it's clear that it would "have an impact" on spammers (either they change their policies (due to the impact!) and continue to get some of their spam delivered, or they don't and at isn't (i.e. impact!)). You seem to think not, but can't seem to explain why. I don't know what kind of "proof" you need, or why you think that spammers wouldn't be affected after arguing yourself that they would change their operations (sounds like that's evidence of 'impact' to me). >Unfortunately their impact on normal email is too costly. >Ditto challenge/response. I agree with you on those two points. (I probably agree with those that payment systems would impact spam too, actually, even without "proof" you seem to call for, although I personally think the plan is still braindead and counter-productive, and hopefully nobody really plans to implement it.) >>I don't see ANY POSSIBLE scenario in which such a "permissions list" approach >>would NOT have an on spammers, their techniques and their methods. If you CAN >>imagine such a scenario, perhaps you'll share it with us. :-) >I did. But you refuse to believe it, or to provide numbers to back >up your theory. I must have missed it. Which of the numbered FACTs enumerated above do you feel is not a valid claim, and why? >>>Would they stop >>>earning money all of a sudden because the spam was plain text? >>It is virtually certain that spam would become less productive for them. The >Numbers please. What percentage of spam relies on those schemes. Again, that analysis and reporting goes beyond 'free support levels'. :-) There are lots of folks out there who are willing to toss out programming jobs to see who will do 'em for free. Even some folks who are interested enough (and with someone else paying the bills) sometimes to do the work. In this case, I'm not going to take the bait. Perhaps someone else here would be interested in researching that further. >>I don't know why we even have to discuss stuff like this here. Most of the >>readers on this list ought to have seen more than enough of these kinds of >>things to understand the problem, and to realize that HTML is a BIG >>part of the >Is there any possibility that all the people on the list might be >right, and you might be wrong? Or that even if you *are* right, >everyone on the lists realizes that your solution is not feasible, >either technically, or from a business standpoint, and therefore not >worth consideration? Possibility? Sure. Nearly anything's possible. I feel that my solution is feasible (CERTAINLY it's feasible technically... I haven't heard ANYBODY make any serious and convincing case to the contrary). From a business standpoint, how well it would turn out would depend on how well it was implemented (same as a LOT of software projects). There's nothing in my proposal, though, which PREVENTS it from being implemented well. >>>You've shown no benefit, >>Rubbish. >>I think that the benefit is substantial and UNDENIABLE. >"think" != "show" Again, tell me which of the three numbered FACTS above are probably incorrect, and why. I've put up a number of assertions, you claim you don't agree and that I haven't made my case, but you refuse to tell me which specific (and pretty inarguable I think) statements you take issue with. >>Which software are you talking about that you think would have to be >>"rewritten"? >All the MTAs (if you want to block at that level) Doesn't _require_ a rewrite (certainly!!), and could even be implemented as an external module apart from the main MTA code. Again, those are implementation details that can be determined during more detailed design and implementation stages. If the logic were to be ADDED to existing MTA software, it would be a MODIFICATION (not a "rewrite", I think). But there are a number of options there, with various tradeoffs associated with each. A lot would depend on the needs and other systems in place at specific ISPs. >and all the MUAs >(so as to avoid sending HTML the first time, at the very least). To change the default of Outlook Express (say) to "don't send HTML" is a change in the default setting. To refer to such a (very!) minor code change as a "rewrite" is quite laughable. >And >then (as you proposed above) you need ways to import and export >permissions lists and move them with you. This in a market where the >leading email program doesn't even give you a way to move your >*address book* from one computer to another. I don't make excuses for poor design of other people's software, but please don't saddle me (or the industry in general) with their design sins. There could be a whole variety of ways to handle such issues, and it's not crucial to my concept that we even decide on a specific one. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 02:08:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06664 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N68Bp05476 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UKUt-0001QF-3T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06155; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKUp-0007RY-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKUj-0007RV-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UKUj-0001NF-Gn; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UKU3-000149-6g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:07:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05297 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:07:16 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKTz-0007RF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:07:15 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKTo-0007RC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:07:04 -0400 Received: (cpmta 17161 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 23:07:00 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 23:07:00 -0700 X-Sent: 23 Jun 2003 06:07:00 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:06:48 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:34:02 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists To: Yakov Shafranovich , gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622221010.00b9cc08@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:34:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>You have mentioned before that even if only ASCII spam is being delivered >> >that will reduce the overall bandwidth consumer. HOWEVER, that will not >> >reduce the total number of spam items in someone's inbox. >>First, people's inbox capacity is never (in my experience) limited by >>number of >>messages... always by number of megabytes. >End users care much more about the number of messages they have to delete, >than number of megabytes the inbox takes especially in the age of large >hard drives and broadband connections. I'm not talking about their local Outlook/OutlookExpress/Eudora/etc Inbox, I'm talking about their limited-size ISP-provided POP3 mailboxes... the ones which overflow and cause their important mail to bounce. If you will be away from the office for days/weeks/months and unable to devote your usual attention to E-mails (say, a transpacific ocean voyage, which I did a year or two ago) these issues can become VERY important. Also, I contend that they're generally less concerned with _number_ of spam messages they receive, exactly, than they are with the aggregate amount of time they have to devote to dealing with them. If there were some five-second way of dealing with them en masse and with confidence, whether there had been ten of them or ten thousand of them would ITSELF matter relatively little. (All other things being equal, and issues of ISP inbox limitations and overflow blocking and download time aside). >>Second, if spammers are unable to pull a lot of the tricks and deceptions >>that >>they do at present, I believe that a lot of spam that presently "works" >>economically will no longer be viable. >Agreed but the very nature of spam has nothing to do with HTML tricks - True, but the use of those HTML tricks is by itself a good "indicator" of likely spam, since few people but spammers seem to ever use them in E-mail. For example, I don't think I've ever seen a case of an innocent, legitimate E-mail that legitimately needed or used Javascript. And certainly nothing that you'd want to receive from someone you didn't know, and that you hadn't developed an understanding with regarding that form of E-mail messages. >it has to do with "how spammers amplify their distribution channels while >keeping costs nearly at zero" in Barry Shain's words. Again, those trojans are propagated and installed primarily either by scripting and/or attachments. Restricting those e-mail features by default on a "need-to-use" basis will eliminate at least the great majority of such stuff. >I think that we had plenty of arguments both ways, and both camps are >staying were they are. I would suggest that either you or someone else, >write up a BCP or RFC, plus create some working code and get back to the >group. I'd be glad to collaborate with someone wishing to proceed with something more formal, particularly if there is funding for the effort. >Not that I am advocating the banning of HTML... Nor am I, although I'd like to see a lot of the pointless and gratuitous use of it in E-mails come to an end. The waste is particularly annoying and egregious in spam, where you don't want the crap to begin with. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 02:30:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10572 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5N6ULc15327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UKqL-0003z8-0k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10537; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKqH-00002e-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKqB-00002X-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UKq2-0003sp-Im; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:30:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UKpQ-0003s1-Ox for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:29:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10434 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:29:21 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKpN-0007Xq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:29:21 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UKpC-0007XP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:29:10 -0400 Received: (cpmta 28025 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 23:29:00 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 23:29:00 -0700 X-Sent: 23 Jun 2003 06:29:00 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:28:37 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:55:51 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists To: Kee Hinckley , gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:55:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: >Several of my messages that you have replied to were NOT sent to the >list. They contains statements which I made specifically because I >knew they were NOT being posted in a list context. We are discussing the issue on a public discussion list. I don't notice anything that appeared particularly sensitive in what you wrote to me. If you want to say something sensitive and wish that it be kept secret, then I suggest that you identify it specifically as such. If your purpose is just to tie up my time in non-productive offlist discussion, frankly, I've got better things to do with my time. I'm offering my suggestions here in hopes that SOME of the people here will find them interesting and worthwhile. I'm not going to get involved in wasteful private and individual discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and other largely pointless details (and particularly not with individuals whose primary thrust seems to be hostile to what I'm proposing, to begin with). I've simply got other demands on my time. >Since you don't >seem capable of following basic email etiquette, I'm sure you'll be >delighted to know that you will not be receiving any further email >from me. Suits me fine, actually. I think your comments haven't been terribly constructive on this proposal, in any case. >(And thank goodness, I won't have to read any more of the >email you insist in sending out in your format, ignoring the >formatting preferences of all your recpients--how ironic.) Please do feel free to block my E-mails if they frustrate and annoy you more than any value you see in them. All recipients (should!) have that right. Nobody should EVER try to FORCE anybody else to read what they say. (Life's just too short to comply with that level of demands on our time.) >Warning to list members. Do not reply to gep2 unless you wish to >have your words made public. I'm certainly capable of maintaining a confidence, when that is warranted. But if you're trying to involve me in some kind of behind-the-scenes whispering intrigue, or in something shady that you don't want to be held accountable for, I'm not interested in wasting my time on games like that, sorry. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 07:16:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16264 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NBGFZ16696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UPJ1-0004LD-Mq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16251; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UPJ1-0001PW-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UPIv-0001PT-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UPIn-0004Gk-Ad; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UPIe-0004GO-4R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:15:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16235 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UPIO-0001PC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:15:36 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UPID-0001Oz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:15:25 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip90-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.90]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F85036955 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:09:05 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20030623070817.B6973@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:23:09AM -0400 Subject: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:09:05 -0400 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:23:09AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > From the charter: > "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent > across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we > generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This > means that an individual or organization should be able to express > consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the > architecture support those desires. " > > We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. > First lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what > goes into it. This posting contains a mixture of social/legal/business commentary, and technical solution. The social/legal/business commentary is an explanation of why we need a technical solution, and the bad consequences resulting if we don't come up with that technical solution. Business commentary =================== Some businesses foolishly rely on email, and cannot function without it. Email never has been "five-nines" dependable, is not "five-nines" dependable now, and (given its current architecture) never will be "five-nines" dependable. Deal with it. A serious business would never consider hosting on an el-cheapo website or using an el-cheapo email provider. They get the best they can afford, along with an SLA (Service Level Agreement). They send out email from a "high-availability" email provider, with SLA, to customers who happen to be on... wait for it... el-cheapo $10/month dialup ISPs, or even freebie ISPs. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and things break down at the residential ISP end. El-cheapo ISPs have 5-megabyte inboxes, and freebie services may only allocate 2 megabytes. And when your inbox is full, everything incoming bounces. Given customer complaints about spam, plus trying to conserve disc space and bandwidth, the residential ISP has no choice but to institute some form of blocking. Barring the development of computer clairvoyance, there will be collateral damage. Social commentary ================= Marketers are pathological in their inability to take "NO" for an answer. They will abuse any system to the maximum extent possible to get their way. They would prefer opt-out, but they will abuse opt-in, I guarantee it. Real life examples... A) A common occurence on the news.admin.net-abuse.email newsgroup is Step 1) a "permission-based-mailer" whining about being blocked. After it's pointed out that they're sending unsolicited email, i.e. spam, they swear up and down that they are really, really, really "double-opt-in". Step 2) after people trot out their logs showing huge numbers of of delivery attempts to *NON-EXISTANT* addresses, which couldn't possibly have replied to a subscription confirm request, the story changes to "but, but, but, our customer swears up and down that it's a double-opt-in list". Step 3) Later it changes to "The guy who sold our customer the CD of umpteen million email addresses in a back alley swore up and down that they're all double opt-in". B) Slamming; i.e. the practice of some long distance providers getting you switched to their service when they falsely claim that you requested the switch. This is morally equivalent to the lie that "you opted in to our mailing list". Legal commentary ================ As I pointed out in "Business Commentary" there are businesses that depend on email. They will press for some form of guaranteed delivery to keep their businesses functioning. I fear that the result will be some sort of "must-carry" legislation. Consequences ============ Kiss personal email good-bye as your inbox gets mailbombed into oblivion by marketers *claiming* that you opted in (slammers and spammers are similar in that regard). Up till now, blocking has kept email usable. The legislated removal of blocking means chaos. The spammers-in-pinstripe-suits will push for "must-carry" legislation for their own reasons. I fear that email-depandant businesses will be what Stalin called "useful idiots" for the revolution. They will think they're acting in their own interests, but they'll actually end up furthering the cause of marketers. How to Avoid This ================= The marketers will always push for "must-carry". What we must do is present a technical solution that guarantees delivery of essential business-communication email, such that universal "must-carry" legislation is seen by legitimate (non-marketer) businesses to be unnecessary. The Proposal ============ Business phone lines cost more than residential phone lines, and ditto for business versus residential ISP connections. The best analogy is regular paper mail. Ordinary letters are often insufficient for business and/or legal purposes. If you want to guarantee speedy delivery (or delivery, period) you expect to pay extra for registered mail or for a courier. Businesses will probably accept "business ISPs" that guarantee delivery *TO CUSTOMERS OF THAT OR ANOTHER BUSINESS ISP*. I am suggesting a major paradigm change. Up til now people have been used to "THE email system". My proposal is to rename "THE email system" to "Personal Email" and create a parallel system called "Business Email". "Business Email" would cost extra, and *TRANSMISSION* would be only via a per-email and per-megabyte user fee. The general public could join with free "read-only" accounts, with the option of sending one-off messages for a low fee. This would literally be the best of both worlds... - businesses would be guaranteed the delivery of important documents because business ISPs could charge sufficient fees to finance a sufficiently robust infra-structure. - today's email system, used by Grandma to keep in touch with the grandkids, wouldn't have to be totally perverted for the sake of big business. General chit-chat and even business queries could be done via personal email. Guaranteed delivery and irrevocable proof-of-receipt would be strictly over business ISPs. Rather than universal "must-carry", residential ISPs would only be faced with "must-allow-client-access" to business ISPs. This would mean not blocking SSL or SSH or VPN or webmail or any other access *ORIGINATED BY CUSTOMERS OF THE PERSONAL ISP* connecting to the business ISP. This does *NOT* include SMTP delivery of email from a business ISP to a residential ISP. Many details remain to be filled in. Comments, suggestions ? -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 12:17:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27094 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NGGZY01274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:16:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UTzf-0000KT-53 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:16:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27075; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UTyA-00082T-3Y; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:15:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UTxm-000817-Si for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:14:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26839 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UTxW-0003Pv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:14:22 -0400 Received: from 000-246-931.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.204.44] helo=68.27.204.44) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UTxJ-0003Pk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:14:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623121325.00b9aa68@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - The ease of hijacking domain names Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:13:26 -0400 Just ran across a Wired article (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59327,00.html) discussion the ease with which domain names can be hijacked. This goes hand in hand with the recent Security Focus article about IP address hijacking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 12:36:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27901 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NGaFs04141 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UUIh-00014i-Eu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27890; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUIf-0003fv-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUIa-0003fs-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UUIT-00011T-TP; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UUHO-00010f-Go for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:35:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27836 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUHM-0003fB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:34:52 -0400 Received: from 000-246-931.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.204.44] helo=68.27.204.44 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUH7-0003eg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:34:39 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623122147.00ba8e90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Grouped reply on permissions lists In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622221010.00b9cc08@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:34:14 -0400 At 01:34 AM 6/23/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >[..] > > >it has to do with "how spammers amplify their distribution channels while > >keeping costs nearly at zero" in Barry Shain's words. > >Again, those trojans are propagated and installed primarily either by >scripting >and/or attachments. Restricting those e-mail features by default on a >"need-to-use" basis will eliminate at least the great majority of such stuff. > > >I think that we had plenty of arguments both ways, and both camps are > >staying were they are. I would suggest that either you or someone else, > >write up a BCP or RFC, plus create some working code and get back to the > >group. > >I'd be glad to collaborate with someone wishing to proceed with something >more >formal, particularly if there is funding for the effort. BTW, both the IRTF/IETF are volunteer organizations. Funding is not expected here. Also, I would like to point something out here. This discussion has dragged on for quiet a while, partly because people have confused your proposal with regular HTML blocking. Your proposal does not advocate straight out HTML blocking, rather developing a system where the receiver can give senders permission for sending HTML email after the initial ASCII email went through. In another words, you are seeking to develop a system where receiver of email can give block incoming email based on certain rules (in your case HTML, attachements, etc.) and give permission to those senders that he knows to allow the stuff to come through. How is this different from the following statements: "Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires. " What you are seeking to create is a consent-based system - a system that blocks email based on certain rules and allows the receiver to express consent for certain senders. This is the goal of the entire group as stated in the charter. In your specific proposal these rules would be HTML, attachments, etc. - in C/R systems this would be all senders that are not whitelisted. The underlying concept is still the same - there is a need for a consent-based system. There are other aspects of your proposal that are outside this "consent-based" system such as plain HTML blocking, need to educate software creators on the dangers of default HTML settings in email clients, etc. These goals can be accomplished by creating a site similar to the "Web Standards Project" (http://www.webstandards.org) like I had mentioned in an earlier message to Vernon. Now keeping that in mind and the fact that the group is chartered to created such system, we should start discussing this on the list. Among the collaborative effort of the people in the group we can come up with something useful. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 12:39:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28031 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NGdAh06110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UULW-0001aT-8e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28023; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UULU-0003hS-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UULP-0003hP-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UULM-0001U8-Lc; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:39:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UUKT-0001TG-CU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:38:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27980 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUKR-0003gr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:38:03 -0400 Received: from 000-246-931.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.204.44] helo=68.27.204.44 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUKE-0003gh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:37:51 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623123533.00ba8b68@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Consent-based Systems Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:37:24 -0400 Considering the HTML discussion that has been going on,. I would like to start a new thread on discussing consent systems as per our charter (Gordon's proposal seeks to create a specific consent-based system). The charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) states: ---snip--- The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam. The scale, growth, and effect of spam on the Internet have generated considerable interest in addressing this problem. Once considered a nuisance, spam has grown to account for a large percentage of the mail volume on the Internet. This unwanted traffic stands to affect local networks, the infrastructure, and the way that people use email. The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires. Expressing consent is more straightforward on an individual basis; as the solution is moved closer to the source, it is more difficult to express a policy that satisfies all downstream receivers. The research group will investigate the feasibility of: (1) a single architecture that supports this and (2) a framework that allows different systems to be plugged in to provide different pieces of the solution. Possible components of such a framework may include: Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within the communication system that enforce the policy. The overall framework may involve multiple subsystems within the policy enforcement component. This may involve fail-open or fail-closed approaches. With a fail-open approach, the system must identify messages that do not have consent. For example, this may include approaches that determine the nature of a message based on its characteristics or input from a collaborative filtering system. With a fail-closed approach, the system must identify messages that do have consent and only allow those to be delivered. For example, consent may be expressed by a policy, by a "consent token" within the message, or by some payment that essentially purchases consent or delivery rights. Source Tracking Component: This component provides deterrence to parties that consider violating the policy by facilitating identification and tracking of senders that violate the policy. This may require non-repudiation at the original sender, the sender's ISP, or some other entities involved in the communication system. Note that "consent" need not necessarily be in advance. It is within scope for ASRG to consider frameworks in which receivers express their lack of consent only after having received a message. The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem. While some techniques focus on local text classification approaches, many traditional and evolving techniques include approaches that involve new network architectures or changes to the existing applications and protocols. ASRG will investigate the spam problem as a large-scale network problem. The ASRG will begin its work by developing a taxonomy of the problem and the proposed solutions. This taxonomy should involve casting the spam problem into different perspectives, such as examining the similarities between spam and denial-of-service; spam and intrusion detection/prevention; and spam and authentication, authorization, and accounting. ASRG will consider the issues of deployment for proposed solutions, emphasizing the investigation of methods that have a realistic chance of wide-scale deployment. The work of the ASRG will also include investigating techniques to evaluate the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions. Usefulness is described by the effectiveness, accuracy, and incentive structure of the system. The cost of the system refers to the burden imposed on users and operators of the communications system. These costs include any changes to the normal use of the system or actual changes in the monetary costs of using the system. The group will investigate evaluation infrastructures such as public trace data archives and research tools to measure and analyze the problem and the solutions. ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, other than the extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the technology. ---snip--- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 14:26:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02717 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NIPa622970 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:25:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UW0W-0005yP-0V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:25:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02658; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UW0T-0004c4-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:25:33 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UW0N-0004bt-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:25:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UVzx-0005pe-6A; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UVzX-0005nf-E8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:24:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02409 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UVus-0004Wb-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:19:46 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UVui-0004WO-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:19:36 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AMY98324; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJE49767; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: Message-ID: <002401c339b3$f1ece7f0$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C33992.6ADB47F0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Subject: [Asrg] EarthLink releases "spamBlocker" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:19:11 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C33992.6ADB47F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Earthlink has now released their "spamBlocker" which includes "permission based" email. See: http://www.earthlink.net/elink/issue24/focus.html bob wyman ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C33992.6ADB47F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Earthlink has now=20 released their "spamBlocker" which includes "permission based"=20 email.
See:
http://www.ear= thlink.net/elink/issue24/focus.html
 
       =20 bob wyman
 
------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C33992.6ADB47F0-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 14:55:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04118 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NItBT29402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWT9-0007e9-RD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04086; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UWT6-0004px-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UWT0-0004pr-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWSz-0007Ut-NS; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19USj2-0004CH-Ib for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:55:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23525 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19USj0-0002jR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:55:18 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19USio-0002jO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:55:07 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5NEsi2Q026397; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:54:44 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D225E@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Dr. Jeffrey Race'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:54:44 -0700 As one of the people who worked on HTML when went in (unilaterally and without any real chance for comment), I have always considered this feature to be a bug. Unauthenticated executable content of any kind has no place in email. There is no cause to send unsolicited and unauthenticated Java, Active-X or Javascript. The tag referencing an external object is causing a programmed action I think it should be blocked by default as well. HTML worked and works just fine without external references or executable content. The IETF could try to issue an edict to stop HTML email but the market simply won't listen. Issuing an RFC does not change the world. Warning MUA authors off executable content in unauthenticated email might work. The principle is already accepted in general... Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [mailto:jrace@attglobal.net] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:57 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail > > > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:29:18 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > >> 1) Their spam will be less effective; > > > >How? > > Much/most html spam includes webbugs to verify identity of the > mark and so validate the address > > Jeffrey Race > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 14:55:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04121 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NItCp29436 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWTA-0007eR-18 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04084; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UWT6-0004q0-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UWT0-0004ps-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWT0-0007V9-FA; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:55:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UUOS-0001k5-KF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:42:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28152 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUOB-0003iw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:41:55 -0400 Received: from mail.computer.net ([207.50.192.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UUO0-0003ih-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:41:44 -0400 Received: from p750.digiportal.com ([207.50.193.99]) by mail.computer.net (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h5NGFoV10363; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20030623121454.03989638@cmserver.computer.net> X-Sender: dhj@cmserver.computer.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: Nate W , Asrg@ietf.org From: David Jameson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it In-Reply-To: References: <023801c2e471$9d30be90$0100a8c0@ymtshanen> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:16:38 -0400 Dead right - we have been saying this for a long time - if you don't want to bother registering ONCE to get your message through, you have decided that your message is just not that important. Dr. David Jameson CTO, DigiPortal Software Inc >Is that a bug, or a feature? > >I've heard a similar objection to simple confirmation whitelists, and my >answer is "feature." If the sender values the message so little that they >won't do something simple to get it through to me, then there's no reason >that I should value it enough to read it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 15:17:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05826 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NJHCv01516 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWoS-0000ON-EN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05768; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UWoQ-00050L-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UWoL-00050I-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWoH-0000L2-8w; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UWnu-0000Ko-Sh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:16:38 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05687 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5NJFo1a013214 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:15:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306231915.h5NJFo1a013214@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] "more readable" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D225F@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:15:50 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > It is not that difficult to strip out HTML tags with a FSR of about > 10 states. > ... For now, I think a simplistic parser with fewer than 10 states related to HTML is sufficient, but I anticipate needing a more complicated mechanism. It's not merely that you need somewhat more than 10 states to detect elements (as opposed to tags) in order to know, for example, where font and color settings end. Netscape 7 and Internet Explorer do various visible things that depends on parsing that can only be done with some backtracking. A trivial example is that both consider to be a comment but ments can be elided but they > are a very reliable spam indicator. If email has an html comment in the > middle of a spamword that increases the probability it is spam. > > This is one case of a spam sender countermeasure that backfires. That popular filters have been adjusted in that direction may be why the more advanced spammers have stopped using that particular tactic. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 15:32:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07069 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NJVaT03618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UX2O-0000wH-OY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07036; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX2N-00058w-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX2H-00058o-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UX1p-0000sf-2k; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UX16-0000rr-Kr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:30:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06994 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX0q-00058F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:30:00 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX0f-00057i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:29:49 -0400 Received: from jmason.org (ga183055.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.183.55]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5NJSEB04393; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:28:14 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 448F816F11; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:28:54 +0100 (IST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3889AF7C3; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:28:54 -0700 (PDT) To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Dr. Jeffrey Race'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:54:44 PDT." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D225E@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030623192854.448F816F11@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:28:49 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip said: > Unauthenticated executable content of any kind has no place in email. There > is no cause to send unsolicited and unauthenticated Java, Active-X or > Javascript. The tag referencing an external object is causing a > programmed action I think it should be blocked by default as well. > > HTML worked and works just fine without external references or executable > content. +1, I agree strongly. BTW it's even more complex now, since many legit mail-sending operations consider "web bugs" (1x1 pixel external IMGs with an identifying tag) to be good practice in measuring mail views. :( --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 15:32:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07103 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NJW7f04233 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UX2t-00016C-Fo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07070; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX2r-00059H-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX2m-00059E-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UX2n-000102-0D; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UX2c-0000wZ-Pv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07034 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX2M-00058n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:34 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UX2B-00058d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:31:23 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5NJUpTP004898; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:30:51 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01669; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:30:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16119.21863.192105.875175@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622220432.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030622220432.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:30:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 22, 2003 at 22:10 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > >Now, would it be possible to scan similarly for systems infected with > >Jeem or one of the other spammer slave bugs? > > > > This is something that Dshield.org is already doing - people are submitting > their firewall logs, and when enough evidence accumulates that an infested > computer is present, his ISP is informed. > > >Anyhow, this all starts with whether it's possible to write a piece of > >software which begins to scan the net for infected systems? I don't > >know enough about these specific viruses right now to answer that > >question: Do they use hard to guess passwords? Do they give failure > >indications on use of a bad passwd which identifies the infection, or > >listen on a specific port, etc? > > I do not know if such scanner is possible since its behavior maybe be > though off as malicious since it will be using and scanning the same ports > that viruses are. [I chopped the above a little to try to get to the meat] I thought you said above that Dshield.org is already doing something like this? Or did I misunderstand? > >Maybe we should also issue an RFC that simply says that the days of > >computer, including personal and desktop computer, operating systems > >being vulnerable to viruses (within some problem definition) should > >have been over years ago via widely distributed and well-known > >techniques utilized in highly successful and comparable operating > >systems software. > > > >As such, any operating system which does not meet a minimum standard > >of being viral resistant (obviously some detail is needed here) and is > >connected to the internet is non-conformant to RFC XYZZY or however > >that's usually worded and is a potential hazard to the net at large. > >[..] > > And do we seriously think that Microsoft would care about some RFC? When 1. Is the criteria now that we should only propose work-product (e.g., an RFC) which Microsoft approves or is likely to adhere to? 2. Are there any other companies we should consider or only Microsoft? 3. Or is the criteria you are now proposing that all companies (it might affect) must be willing to adopt any work-product of this group? So arguing (you don't really know what MS will do, do you?) that just one company (in this case MS) might not adopt it is grounds for rejection? > was the last time Microsoft cared about an Internet standard when its not > in their interest? Take the HTML example and the various related 1. How do you know what is in Microsoft's interest? Do you speak for Microsoft? 2. Assuming you are correct, and you may well be, should we not pursue the truth even if it's not entirely in Microsoft's pecuniary interests? 3. Do any significant purchasers of MS (industry, govt) issue RFPs which indicate that compliance with various RFCs form a minimum criteria for a vendor to be considered? > discussions as to changing the default MUA behavior as per HTML. What might > actually force Microsoft to make their OS more secure is increased > competition from Linux and other Unixes. Well, I don't know that I plan to "force" MS to do anything, in particular via ASRG. However, if it is true that a major source of spam is the exploitation of viruses infecting vulnerable operating systems then it seems we could, as a work-product, state that truth officially. Even if it isn't in the best possible interest of Microsoft (something which remains to be shown.) If it's true that this group is to be bounded by Microsoft's pecuniary interests, as you claim, then I think we have a real problem. When did the IETF become a subsidiary of Microsoft? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 15:51:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07764 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NJpJR06932 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXLT-0001nj-J5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07744; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXLS-0005Hi-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXLM-0005Hf-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXLC-0001kX-3k; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:51:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXL7-0001k2-SZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:50:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07725 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXL6-0005HF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:50:56 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXKu-0005Gu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:50:45 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5NJnqch018973; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:49:52 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2264@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] "more readable" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:49:50 -0700 > It's not merely that you need somewhat more than 10 states to detect > elements (as opposed to tags) in order to know, for example, where > font and color settings end. Netscape 7 and Internet Explorer do > various visible things that depends on parsing that can only be done > with some backtracking. A trivial example is that both consider > to be a comment but , just to name two things > that are easy to handle and not mentioning other things that are more > hassle since there's no reason instruct the slower spammers reading > this mailing list. It is not that difficult to strip out HTML tags with a FSR of about 10 states. Strange tags and comments can be elided but they are a very reliable spam indicator. If email has an html comment in the middle of a spamword that increases the probability it is spam. This is one case of a spam sender countermeasure that backfires. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 16:24:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08808 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NKNho10923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:23:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXqp-0002q6-D8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:23:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08795; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXqn-0005Tj-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:23:41 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXqh-0005TO-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:23:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXpB-0002j2-2A; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXoM-0002iI-Gy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:21:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08745 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXmY-0005SU-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:19:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.dslextreme.com ([66.51.205.17] helo=co1.dslextreme.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXmN-0005SP-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:19:07 -0400 Received: from kit ([208.187.129.192]) by co1.dslextreme.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5NKDAaF007426 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:13:16 -0700 Message-ID: <002601c3398a$6cb3d220$c081bbd0@kit> From: "Jed Margolin" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622221010.00b9cc08@solidmatrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] How to get rid of spam and spammers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:21:51 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Since Carnivore and TIA are already reading everyone's email anyway, they should set up an account called spam@carnivore.gov . Anytime a mass mailing of an identical, or almost identical, or substantially identical email results in more than 50% of the recipients complaining to spam@carnivore.gov that it is spam, the spammer will be tracked down, declared an enemy combatant, and thrown into a military prison, never to be heard from again. The owners of ISPs providing accounts to such spammers will be treated similarly unless they are big companies that make substantial campaign contributions to the right people. It won't require any new mail protocols. You won't have to worry about anyone asserting patent rights. It won't even require new laws. The only thing left to decide is what threshold to use. How about a 100 email minimum ? And we'll need a catchy name for the new War on Spam. Any ideas? Jedidiah Margolin _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 16:29:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08990 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NKTFv11764 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXwB-00033f-Mm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08979; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXw9-0005W6-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXw4-0005W3-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXvx-0002xD-1U; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXvd-0002x0-48 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:28:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08959 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXvb-0005Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:28:39 -0400 Received: from 000-235-748.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.160.37] helo=68.27.160.37) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXvP-0005Vc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:28:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162741.00ba8e90@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id QAA08960 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:27:42 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The following is a Wall Street Journal Editiorial written by Bill Gates o= f=20 Microsoft (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=3D1100= 03662): --snip--- MAIL CALL Why I Hate Spam And what we're doing about it. BY BILL GATES Monday, June 23, 2003 12:01 a.m. SEATTLE--Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam=20 every day. Much of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick= .=20 It would be funny if it weren't so irritating. But spam is worse than irritating. It is a drain on business productivity= ,=20 an increasingly costly waste of time and resources that clogs corporate=20 networks and distracts workers. Among consumers, it spreads scams,=20 pornography and even computer viruses. Worse, spammers prey on less=20 sophisticated e-mail users, including children, threatening their safety=20 and privacy. And as everyone struggles to sift spam from their inboxes,=20 valid messages are sometimes overlooked or deleted, which makes e-mail le= ss=20 useful and reliable as a channel for communication and legitimate=20 e-commerce. In short, spam threatens to undo much of the good that e-mail= =20 has achieved. As part of our drive to create a more trustworthy computing environment,=20 this month, Microsoft filed 15 lawsuits in the U.S. and U.K. against=20 companies and individuals alleged to have sent billions of spam messages = in=20 violation of state and federal laws. In addition to filing civil lawsuits= =20 and taking other enforcement actions, we are significantly stepping up ou= r=20 efforts to fight spam through technological innovation and cooperation wi= th=20 government and industry leaders. We are developing more effective anti-sp= am=20 filters and other technologies that build on our research into fields suc= h=20 as machine learning--the design of systems that learn from data and grow=20 smarter over time. These "smart" systems are vital to the fight against=20 spam because every defensive action causes spammers to change their=20 tactics. Technology, to be effective, must continuously adapt too. Already, spam filters built into MSN and Hotmail servers block 2.4 billio= n=20 messages a day before they reach subscribers' inboxes. We have assembled = a=20 vast and fast-growing database of spam, which will be used by a forthcomi= ng=20 version of our Outlook e-mail software to block spam more effectively. An= d=20 a new version of our Exchange e-mail server will include advanced anti-sp= am=20 features. Our goal is to do everything possible to secure e-mail systems=20 with servers that monitor and control the points of entry. But a single company can't stem the tide of spam alone. So we are working= =20 with other industry leaders such as AOL, Yahoo! and Earthlink on a range = of=20 joint initiatives. For example, we are battling spammers who set up=20 numerous e-mail accounts and move from service to service to avoid=20 detection. To put an end to this shell game, we are sharing information s= o=20 that we can keep tabs on roving spammers and shut them down more=20 effectively. Spammers also go to great lengths to conceal or "spoof" thei= r=20 identities, so we are partnering with other service providers to identify= =20 and restrict mail that conceals its source. And we are creating a system = to=20 verify sender addresses, much as recipients' addresses are verified today. A key to eliminating spam is establishing clear guidelines for legitimate= =20 commercial e-mail. With industry and consumer groups, we are developing=20 best-practice guidelines to help responsible companies understand how to=20 reach their customers without spamming them. Congress could help by=20 providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practice= s.=20 Our proposal is to create a regulatory "safe harbor" status for senders w= ho=20 comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulator= y=20 body. Senders who do not comply would have to insert an "ADV:"=20 label--standing for advertisement--in the subject line of all unsolicited= =20 commercial e-mail. This would enable computer users either to accept=20 ADV-labeled mail or to have it deleted automatically. As less junk mail reaches recipients--and violators face stiffer sanction= s=20 for illegal activities--the financial incentives for spammers will=20 decrease, and spamming will lose its appeal. Then maybe we can all focus on the e-mail that's actually worth reading. Mr. Gates is chairman and chief software architect of Microsoft Corp. Copyright =A9 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ---snip---=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 16:40:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09277 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NKeDB13468 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UY6n-0003V9-Nq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09262; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UY6l-0005Zb-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UY6g-0005ZX-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UY6b-0003Sw-Fz; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UY5l-0003SC-St for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:39:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09252 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UY5j-0005Z1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:39:07 -0400 Received: from 000-235-748.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.160.37] helo=68.27.160.37) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UY5W-0005Yy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:38:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162351.00bb2c68@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16119.21863.192105.875175@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622220432.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030622220432.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:38:32 -0400 At 03:30 PM 6/23/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 22, 2003 at 22:10 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > >Now, would it be possible to scan similarly for systems infected with > > >Jeem or one of the other spammer slave bugs? > > > > > > > This is something that Dshield.org is already doing - people are > submitting > > their firewall logs, and when enough evidence accumulates that an > infested > > computer is present, his ISP is informed. > > > > >Anyhow, this all starts with whether it's possible to write a piece of > > >software which begins to scan the net for infected systems? I don't > > >know enough about these specific viruses right now to answer that > > >question: Do they use hard to guess passwords? Do they give failure > > >indications on use of a bad passwd which identifies the infection, or > > >listen on a specific port, etc? > > > > I do not know if such scanner is possible since its behavior maybe be > > though off as malicious since it will be using and scanning the same > ports > > that viruses are. > >[I chopped the above a little to try to get to the meat] > >I thought you said above that Dshield.org is already doing something >like this? Or did I misunderstand? Sorry about being confusing. DShield.org collects data from PASSIVE sources such as firewalls detecting attacks. What you were proposing is an ACTIVE scanner, one that actually goes ahead looking for security holes and viruses. > > >Maybe we should also issue an RFC that simply says that the days of > > >computer, including personal and desktop computer, operating systems > > >being vulnerable to viruses (within some problem definition) should > > >have been over years ago via widely distributed and well-known > > >techniques utilized in highly successful and comparable operating > > >systems software. > > > > > >As such, any operating system which does not meet a minimum standard > > >of being viral resistant (obviously some detail is needed here) and is > > >connected to the internet is non-conformant to RFC XYZZY or however > > >that's usually worded and is a potential hazard to the net at large. > > >[..] > > > > And do we seriously think that Microsoft would care about some RFC? When > > 1. Is the criteria now that we should only propose work-product > (e.g., an RFC) which Microsoft approves or is likely to adhere > to? Anything that is proposed in regards to operating systems and MUA, must take into account the world's most used OS - Windows. Thus, Microsoft mus be taken into account. I have no problems with proposing solutions that Microsoft's is unlikely to approve - but then again they are unlikely to be implemented. > 2. Are there any other companies we should consider or only > Microsoft? We should consider all manufacturers of operating systems including Apple (Mac OS), Sun (Solaris), Linux, etc. We should also consider major MUA manufacturers - Qualcomm (Eudora), Pine, etc. But historically the open source community has been much better at following standards than closed-source. > 3. Or is the criteria you are now proposing that all companies (it > might affect) must be willing to adopt any work-product of this > group? So arguing (you don't really know what MS will do, do > you?) that just one company (in this case MS) might not adopt it > is grounds for rejection? I am arguing that unless we know that Microsoft is willing to adopt our proposal it would not have a high chance of success. However, I am definitely not against such proposal - just pointing out that it probably would not be successful. And yes, you are correct I do not know what Microsoft will do. However, their past history suggests that they will not confirm. > > was the last time Microsoft cared about an Internet standard when its not > > in their interest? Take the HTML example and the various related > > 1. How do you know what is in Microsoft's interest? Do you speak > for Microsoft? I am basing this on their past history. But contacting Microsoft might settle the issue. > 2. Assuming you are correct, and you may well be, should we not > pursue the truth even if it's not entirely in Microsoft's > pecuniary interests? We should proceed but we should take into account Microsoft's monopoly on desktop OSes, and its near monopoly on MUAs (Outlook Express). Ways of dealing with Windows/Outlook users should be taken into account/ > 3. Do any significant purchasers of MS (industry, govt) issue RFPs > which indicate that compliance with various RFCs form a minimum > criteria for a vendor to be considered? I am not aware of any but it is a very good idea. > > discussions as to changing the default MUA behavior as per HTML. What > might > > actually force Microsoft to make their OS more secure is increased > > competition from Linux and other Unixes. > >Well, I don't know that I plan to "force" MS to do anything, in >particular via ASRG. > >However, if it is true that a major source of spam is the exploitation >of viruses infecting vulnerable operating systems then it seems we >could, as a work-product, state that truth officially. I agree with that, stating facts would help. One idea which I suggested in another email, is perhaps creating an "Email Standards Project" similar to the "Web Standards Project" (http://www.webstandards.org), to publicize good email and anti-spam practices, perhaps combined with a collection of anti-spam patches for popular MTAs and instructions for MUAs. >Even if it isn't in the best possible interest of Microsoft (something >which remains to be shown.) I am basing this on their past history but I agree that we definatly do not know for sure what Microsoft will do. The best thing would be to ask them directly unless there is already a Microsoft's representative lurking in the group. >If it's true that this group is to be bounded by Microsoft's pecuniary >interests, as you claim, then I think we have a real problem. > >When did the IETF become a subsidiary of Microsoft? Unfortunately like any other standards body, industry support must be taken into account. There are numerous examples of the industry creating their own standards which might not be in other's best interest. Additionally, Microsoft is part of a separate anti-spam consortium with AOL and others, and might not be interested in ASRG or the IETF. The IETF is not a subsidiary of Microsoft nor will it ever be. But unless we have a clear way to somehow communicate with MS or able to influence them into accepting IETF standards, life will not be easy for IETF. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 16:48:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09508 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NKl8m14497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYDU-0003lk-AI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09468; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYDS-0005bR-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYDM-0005bO-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYDM-0003fW-Ow; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYCT-0003ed-PB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:46:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09435 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYCR-0005av-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:46:03 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYCH-0005ar-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:45:53 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2476406; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:45:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030623070817.B6973@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030623070817.B6973@m433> To: Walter Dnes From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Cc: ASRG list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:19:13 -0400 At 7:09 AM -0400 6/23/03, Walter Dnes wrote: > Many details remain to be filled in. Comments, suggestions ? 1. There are two aspects of depending on email as a business. One is sending. But for most businesses receiving is even more important. And that's receiving from end users. How do you do that without involving spam? 2. While this creates a desirable service for businesses, and it potentially avoids the danger of negative legislation in the personal email space, does it have any attributes that directly help eliminate spam in the personal email space? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 16:49:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09550 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NKn8k14935 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYFQ-0003so-7Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09524; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYFO-0005c9-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYFI-0005c6-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYFJ-0003ma-Fh; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYF7-0003mK-U4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09501 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYF5-0005bp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:47 -0400 Received: from 000-235-748.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.160.37] helo=68.27.160.37) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYEt-0005bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623164650.00ba8b68@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Cc: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:48:15 -0400 At 03:30 PM 6/23/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 22, 2003 at 22:10 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > > >[..] > > > > was the last time Microsoft cared about an Internet standard when its not > > in their interest? Take the HTML example and the various related > > 1. How do you know what is in Microsoft's interest? Do you speak > for Microsoft? BTW, I went through the mailing list archives and have seen several messages written by people with addresses @microsoft.com. There is definitely their presence here, but I guess they are afraid to speak up. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 17:09:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10503 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NL9A118083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYYo-0004ha-2N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10493; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYYl-0005l1-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYYg-0005ky-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYYf-0004cW-6C; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UYXp-0004cC-Ia for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:08:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10439 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYXn-0005kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:08:07 -0400 Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net ([216.104.160.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UYXc-0005km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:07:56 -0400 Received: from mx0.emailqueue.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA81699 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spencer@mcsr-labs.org) Received: from (216.62.6.129 [216.62.6.129]) by mail.varaha.com with SMTP id AFL0gJR2 Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020501c339cb$733010a0$8100000a@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623164650.00ba8b68@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:07:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Yakov, I have to say that if Microsoft people spoke up about Microsoft plans every time someone speculated about these plans, Microsoft wouldn't get a whole lot done. I wouldn't be likely to respond to speculation about my employer. I'm assuming this is as likely an explanation as being afraid to speak up... Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... > > BTW, I went through the mailing list archives and have seen several > messages written by people with addresses @microsoft.com. There is > definitely their presence here, but I guess they are afraid to speak up. > > Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 23:05:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19409 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5O35KC21846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ue7U-0005gH-PP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19389; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ue7R-0007eW-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ue7L-0007eT-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ue7B-0005eP-AM; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ue76-0005e5-9p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19383 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ue72-0007eM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:52 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ue6s-0007eG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:42 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (KenMcG@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5O34IAG013246; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:18 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14164; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein Message-ID: <16119.49074.85670.610396@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162741.00ba8e90@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162741.00ba8e90@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:04:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Why I Hate Spam >And what we're doing about it. > >BY BILL GATES ... >But a single company can't stem the tide of spam alone... Ironically, it may well be that a single company can stem the tide of spam alone and, remarkably enough, it's Mr Gates' company. Apparently much of the spam is forwarded via computers which have been infected by viruses turning them into unwaitting mail slaves for spammers. Reviewing the most common of these viruses, such as Jeem, sobig.a and Proxy-guzu, indicates that they all target Microsoft's winows operating system. Versions up to and including their latest XP and ME. There's a reason for this: Microsoft's operating systems are vulnerable to viruses. Other operating systems, or at least late-releases (e.g., Max OSX), are not susceptible to viruses. The technology for immunizing OS's against viruses has been known for about 40 years (before viruses even existed!) It's been commonly used in other OS's for about 20 years. And it's been available on consumer/desktop PC-class machines for at least 10 years. So why does Microsoft continue to provide opportunity for spammers unnecessarily? And why does Mr Gates act like he does not know this? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 23 23:12:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19561 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5O3C5h24185 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:12:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UeE1-0006I0-PP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:12:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19554; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UeDz-0007hB-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:12:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UeDu-0007h8-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UeDu-0006Bt-W8; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UeDp-0006BV-SO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19551 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UeDm-0007h3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:50 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UeDb-0007gf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:11:39 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5O3AhcB018546; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:10:43 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA17935; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:10:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16119.49460.427459.185977@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162351.00bb2c68@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030622220432.00b9cc08@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162351.00bb2c68@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:10:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 23, 2003 at 16:38 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > Anything that is proposed in regards to operating systems and MUA, must > take into account the world's most used OS - Windows. Thus, Microsoft mus > be taken into account. I have no problems with proposing solutions that > Microsoft's is unlikely to approve - but then again they are unlikely to be > implemented. With all due respect I think it's ABSURD for you to tell us that Microsoft will not fix their operating systems to be more virus-proof MERELY because the people and organizations who buy their products implore them to do so. Judging by the Bill Gates editorial in the WSJ you posted he is either clueless that this is a major contributor to the volume of spam, or he is lying and stonewalling the facts. I suppose if people don't have the nerve to point out that the emperor has no clothes it's reasonable to assume the emperor remains clueless, or perhaps due to the relative silence doesn't think it's very important. If you have no faith in the truth you don't belong here. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 02:49:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05490 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5O6nIu23170 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UhcE-00061d-1h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05479; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UhcA-00010o-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uhc4-00010l-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Uhbx-0005zZ-Al; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UhbX-0005yh-6K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:48:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05463 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:48:17 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UhbE-00010O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:48:16 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uhb3-00010B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:48:05 -0400 Received: (cpmta 13858 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 23:47:40 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 23:47:40 -0700 X-Sent: 24 Jun 2003 06:47:40 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:47:08 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:14:27 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id CAA05464 Subject: [Asrg] Textbook example Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:14:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's sorta a good textbook example of relatively common spammer tricks.= Let's=20 consider it: [quote] Received: from c000.snv.cp.net=20 (h026.c000.snv.cp.net[209.228.32.61](misconfigured sender)) by=20 sccrmxc14.attbi.com (sccrmxc14) with SMTP id <20030624033452s1400or14be>;= Tue,=20 24 Jun 2003 03:34:52 +0000 Received: (cpmta 23882 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 20:34:51 -0700 Delivered-To: terabites.com%gep2@terabites.com Received: (cpmta 23867 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 20:34:50 -0700 Received: from 200.78.44.3 (HELO louisiana.co.jp) by smtp.c000.snv.cp.net= =20 (209.228.32.61) with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 20:34:50 -0700 X-Received: 24 Jun 2003 03:34:50 GMT Reply-To: Message-ID: <157378001402$505f787c.seeds45@louisiana.co.jp> From: Sabastian Taylor To: Subject: nvvlxo lucrative increase Ebay 5=E9min=E3r - Fre=B7e _to Y@ou Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:35:08 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; "charset=3Diso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal chanty MycXY42jUmagernJQbgbHxg%3D%3D unselfishly o-eVm {a href=3D"http://hgabriela@210.15.187.49/dtomi/">{img=20 src=3D"http://hjones4@210.15.187.49/dtomi/pr4.gif">{/a> Y-6i testify E7Cn4ZEzJHbbHXGlKoTWUUzID plunder [end quote] Let's presume for the moment that seeds45@louisiana.co.jp is in fact a=20 legitimate (probably disposable) E-mail address. It doesn't appear, thou= gh,=20 that the spammer obviously abused an open relay or anything of the sort. [Open SMTP mail server? That's a possibility, I suppose.] Clearly the spammer is trying to employ a variety of strategies to get pa= st=20 filters (although why they'd seriously expect a GOOD result by bludgeonin= g their=20 way into someone's Inbox who had set up mechanisms to try to keep them ou= t is a=20 curiosity...). They've included a lot of random text in the message (hard to say if the = text is=20 different in different copies, to bypass hash code blockers, but I'd susp= ect=20 so). One strategy I could use in my mail filtering system would be to trigger = on=20 words containing tricked-up letters or odd embedded delimiters (using 5 i= nstead=20 of S, for example, or using odd accented letters in english words that do= n't use=20 them, or weird embedded delimiters whose sole purpose is to confuse keywo= rd=20 scanners). It probably isn't too hard to develop SPITBOL patterns which = will=20 match such tricks, and probably with "tolerable" efficiency (given today'= s fast=20 processors...) =20 Another filtering method might be based on the message having a high rati= o of=20 non-word content (some other spams I've seen though seem to use sections = of old=20 term papers or something, just to give meaningless "academic content" fil= ters a=20 false "okay" decision). =20 Another indicator is the use of non-domain-based URLs... legitimate E-mai= ls=20 rarely need to use those. Yet another indicator is the use of the @ in t= he URL=20 in hopes of tricking some filters... again, this isn't usually found in=20 legitimate links. I'd presume that Spam Assassin (which I presently don't use here) would i= dentify=20 many of these "odd" constructs and end up tossing a message like this one= . =20 Perhaps someone else here has more actual direct experience with it and c= an=20 comment on that. Meanwhile, I still think that the most notable (and common) trick being e= mployed=20 to try to get around content scanners is by putting the main 'content' ei= ther in=20 the GIF file (which so far I've not successfully managed to look at) or e= lse in=20 the Web page linked to it. While I suppose it would be possible for the = filter=20 to actually go and retrieve the linked page(s) or something, and content-= scan=20 those (particularly if the message itself doesn't seem to have much in th= e way=20 of meaningful or revealing content of its own), this seems like it's real= ly a=20 lot of effort and once you get into that whole area there are all manner = of=20 other tricks possible so things can escalate pretty quickly. Probably we= ll past=20 the point of diminishing returns. Anyhow, I think this message demonstrates pretty clearly why I'm of the o= pinion=20 that (rather than spf-like approaches, which probably would NOT catch thi= s spam,=20 since chances are at least fair that the E-mail address is accurate and n= ot=20 forged) and when traditional content scanners aren't being given a whole = heck of=20 a lot to work with here... the simple approach of filtering such HTML-bur= dened=20 E-mail coming from someone you never knew and authorized before is a pret= ty=20 reasonable strategy, and it would drop out this E-mail and most imaginabl= e=20 (present and future) variants of it. The fact that clueless folks who send HTML-burdened mails [because it's s= imply=20 the default for them] might be somewhat inconvenienced by this, should th= e=20 permissions-based approach become widespread, but they're after all being= the=20 thoughtless ones and not caring about wasting the recipient's inbox space= , so a=20 little inconvenience in exchange for reducing spam volume might not be an= =20 unreasonable tradeoff. Now, it IS true I suppose that the spammer could have used a non-hyperlin= ked URL=20 and asked the recipient to copy-and-paste it, but they're still probably = going=20 to need a lure (which then would have to be plain text to evade the HTML-= based=20 permissions test) and thus that lure text would be available to the conte= nt=20 scanner, which whatever's in the GIF file referenced (for all intents an=20 purposes) really is not. Anyhow, I'd be interested in the thoughts of the others here regarding th= is=20 particular example. [And also, if any of the rest of y'all have received this spam on your ow= n=20 systems, you might be interested to compare the copy I got with the copy = you=20 received, to see what if any changes in my copy have resulted from my inc= oming=20 mail processing that I use here....] And another perhaps interesting question regarding stuff like this. When= an=20 E-mail IS suspected of being spam (and strongly enough that is is picked = out of=20 the delivery queue)... which is better? To just t-can it? Or should it = bounce=20 back to the sender (with suitable ricochet protection)? Should it bounce= with a=20 human-sensible explanation about why it was filtered etc etc? Is it better to tell spammers (effectively) that the E-mail address they = mailed=20 to is good, and what they need to do to get through your filters? Is it = better=20 to just black-hole the message? Is it better (as some spam filters do) t= o=20 return a bogus "no such user" message in hopes that the spammers will pur= ge the=20 "no longer good" address from their databases? Is this one of those things that the recipient should be able to specify?= =20 Perhaps using the same permissions-list mechanism? (Example: if the mai= l is=20 from someone on your permissions list, but they weren't given permission = to send=20 you mail in that format or with attachments, maybe then you should give t= hem the=20 benefit of the doubt and tell them that you haven't (yet) given them perm= ission=20 to send you stuff like that... whereas if it's from a complete stranger, = maybe=20 instead one should just t-can it...?) Is there a more clever solution called for, perhaps, based on "how legiti= mate"=20 the message arguably looks like it might be? And if so, what criteria mi= ght be=20 employed? There are a lot of design decisions that can be possible here, and a vani= shingly=20 small likelihood I suppose that everyone will ever concur on any one of t= hem=20 (and why, I suspect, there's little point in setting up a shooting galler= y here=20 so individuals can take potshots at any specific individual implementatio= n). =20 More likely that such differences will reflect in service differentiation= =20 between different ISPs incorporating such permissions-based filtering sch= emes. Lots of questions. At least it shows why I *really* like the simple, dir= ect=20 approach resulting from simply filtering out (unexpected) HTML-burdened m= essages=20 (or attachments) if they're not from someone you've granted permission to= send=20 you stuff like that. It's a SIMPLE approach, would take out a LOT of spa= m=20 REALLY fast, and would make it a lot easier to deal with the remainder. And giving different ISPs (or them passing on to their customers perhaps)= the=20 choice of what to do about the messages not getting through the filter. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represe= nt". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 09:10:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14964 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5ODACC06454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UnYq-0001g1-CQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14929; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UnYo-0002pl-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UnYi-0002pi-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UnYg-0001e8-6U; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UnWt-0001bY-RQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:09:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14877 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:08:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UnWs-0002ob-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:08:10 -0400 Received: from mail2.ssmb.com ([199.67.141.25] helo=imbaspam-nj03.iplex.ssmb.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UnWh-0002oV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:07:59 -0400 Received: from imbarc-nj01.nj.ssmb.com (imbarc-nj01-2 [150.110.115.169]) by imbaspam-nj03.iplex.ssmb.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.20 $) with ESMTP id h5OCoTTe021032; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub-dc1.eu.ssmb.com (mailhub-dc1.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.145.234]) by imbarc-nj01.nj.ssmb.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h5OCoN8N005743; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchukc4.eur.nsroot.net (exchukc4.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.223.93]) by mailhub-dc1.eu.ssmb.com (8.9.3-GEMSp2/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id NAA19618; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:50:21 +0100 (BST) Received: by exchukc4.eur.nsroot.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:50:19 +0100 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72DA5E@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'Evan Harris'" , asrg@ietf.org, "'David F. Skoll'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:50:15 +0100 > Over the past few months, I've been working on a new method of blocking > spam that I've termed "Greylisting". From my testing it appears to be > over 97% effective. > > It requires no changes to the infrastructure, is resistant to spammer > adaptation, and is very effective, yet very lightweight. > > The paper outlining the method is at > http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/ and I have also > posted an example implementation for a Sendmail Milter written in perl. You seem to have reinvented something that CanIt, from Roaring Penguin, has done for a while. More information about CanIt at http://www.canit.ca/ I've copied David Skoll, the author, for comment. N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 10:01:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16494 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OE1Tw13234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UoMT-0003RN-DE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16483; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UoMR-00038B-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:27 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UoML-000388-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UoM2-0003O0-EH; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UoLO-0003LX-Qk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:00:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16401 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:00:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UoLM-00037O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:00:20 -0400 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-117.s-ip.magma.ca ([209.217.122.117]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UoLB-000373-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:00:09 -0400 Received: from shishi.roaringpenguin.com (shishi.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.2.3]) by shevy.roaringpenguin.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ODvSKd011962; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:57:28 -0400 From: "David F. Skoll" To: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" cc: "'Evan Harris'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72DA5E@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> Message-ID: References: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72DA5E@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:57:28 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Clayton, Nik [IT] wrote: > You seem to have reinvented something that CanIt, from Roaring Penguin, > has done for a while. I've corresponded with Evan about this. His "greylisting" idea is a bit more sophisticated/aggressive than what we call "hit-and-run" prevention in CanIt. He has taken the idea one step further. In CanIt, we only care about sender/recipient pairs, and we don't impose any time limits on retries. Evan's scheme looks at sender/recipient/IP-Address triples, and imposes lower and upper limits on retries. It is likely to be more effective than "hit-and-run", but also may delay legitimate mail more and may cause problems in some (very unusual) situations. Regards, David. > > More information about CanIt at > > http://www.canit.ca/ > > I've copied David Skoll, the author, for comment. > > N > -- > 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 > -- The 75 column-ometer > Global Messaging, A: Top posting > 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 12:06:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21796 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OG62c02379 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UqJ0-0000cI-1K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:06:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21757; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UqI2-0000Oh-Rk; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:05:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UqHY-0000NE-1e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:04:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21611 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UqFk-0003uy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:02:40 -0400 Received: from 000-249-423.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.213.250] helo=68.27.213.250) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UqFY-0003ue-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:02:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030624120122.00b91630@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textbook example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:01:25 -0400 At 02:14 AM 6/24/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >Here's sorta a good textbook example of relatively common spammer >tricks. Let's >consider it: >[..] Out of the twenty spam messages I received this morning at one specific account, two were text based and not HTML as follows: [quote] Return-Path: Received: from mail.com (wa2.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [80.55.182.2]) by pocketmail.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with SMTP id h5OCeF6A004611; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [29.58.245.65] by smtp18.yenddx.com with SMTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:59:27 -0300 Received: from unknown (HELO qnx.mdrost.com) (128.19.200.85) by smtp4.cyberemailings.com with QMQP; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:58:54 +0600 Received: from webmail.halftomorrow.com ([202.143.191.188]) by public.micromail.com.au with SMTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:58:21 +0300 Received: from 200.191.130.39 ([200.191.130.39]) by mx03.listsystemsf.net with SMTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:57:48 +1000 Message-ID: <5a8801c33a47$ac324310$bdb5b46e@xgwij> Reply-To: "Monty Kambo" From: "Monty Kambo" To: xfiles@pocketmail.com Subject: xfiles, register or renew any d0main names at a fraction the price Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:56:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Status: U X-UIDL: 28547 Every extensi0n you want to register or renew is available here and it is che@p. Most popular: .net .info .tv Just released: .club .travel .sport Over 100,000 names registered so far. http://www.domainsforpeople.com T@ke me 0ff: http://www.domainsforpeople.com/cgi-bin/off_list.pl Thank you for visiting our site! BduxcihhqmJk SqxBpfacql a1-2s [end quote] [quote] Return-Path: Received: from paris.com (PS3.neoline.com.br [200.164.228.3]) by pocketmail.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with SMTP id h5OEVO7r005874; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 156.213.201.245 ([156.213.201.245]) by qrx.quickslick.com with local; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:39:41 -0800 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Jim Turpin" From: "Jim Turpin" To: client@info.com Subject: you don't have to choose......................take a look at this Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:52:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Status: U X-UIDL: 28550 Every extensi0n you want to register or renew is available here and it is che@p. Most popular: .org .info .tv Just released: .club .inc .med Flexibility to manage or move your name anytime without c0st. http://www.domainsforpeople.com I d0n't w@nt t0 recieve this anym0re: http://www.domainsforpeople.com/cgi-bin/off_list.pl Have a nice day! OhsdWtubcaautj NsifXswq e3-ss2 [end quote] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 12:50:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23396 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OGoDf11835 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Uqzl-00034o-GR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23373; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uqzj-0004ET-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uqzd-0004EQ-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UqzZ-0002yX-8x; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Uqz6-0002xf-GM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:49:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23327 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:49:28 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uqz4-0004Dx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:49:30 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uqyu-0004Dk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:49:20 -0400 Received: (cpmta 22384 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 09:48:53 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 24 Jun 2003 09:48:53 -0700 X-Sent: 24 Jun 2003 16:48:53 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:47:52 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:15:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:15:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Unauthenticated executable content of any kind has no place in email. There is no cause to send unsolicited and unauthenticated Java, Active-X or Javascript. The tag referencing an external object is causing a programmed action I think it should be blocked by default as well. > HTML worked and works just fine without external references or executable content. > The IETF could try to issue an edict to stop HTML email but the market simply won't listen. Issuing an RFC does not change the world. Again, I'm not trying to STOP HTML-burdened E-mail, but I think it should NOT be the DEFAULT, especially not in cases where the features thus enabled are not even used in the message in question. As for the "market listening", if we encourage recipients to establish filtering based on aspects of HTML, such that some notable percentage of HTML-burdened mail bounces or at least does not get delivered in the absence of specific permission authority... then I think that AOL users (for example) in similarly notable numbers calling their AOL Customer Support clamboring for how to send plain ASCII text messages would get AOL's attention, and probably result in them realizing what a bad idea it is to send purely gratuitous HTML by default. AOL users don't like spam any more than the rest of us, (maybe even less!) and I think you'd get a lot of them jump onboard such a plan. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 13:05:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24226 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OH4a013566 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:04:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UrDg-0003Wj-2v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:04:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24200; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UrD6-0003OV-UN; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UrCK-0003OA-Vk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:03:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24107 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:03:09 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UrCJ-0004Nn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:03:11 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UrC8-0004Nk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:03:00 -0400 Received: (cpmta 4234 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 10:02:54 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 24 Jun 2003 10:02:54 -0700 X-Sent: 24 Jun 2003 17:02:54 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:02:39 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:30:00 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spammer reaction to countermeasures Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:30:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Strange tags and comments can be elided but they > are a very reliable spam indicator. If email has an html comment in the > middle of a spamword that increases the probability it is spam. >> This is one case of a spam sender countermeasure that backfires. > That popular filters have been adjusted in that direction may be why the more advanced spammers have stopped using that particular tactic. The problem is that there are SO MANY odd things in various HTML implementations (such as the less-than-uniform handling of HTML comments as has been pointed out) that there are a lot of loopholes, backwaters and dark corners for increasingly-devious spammers to hide in. Instead of fighting a tiring and largely pointless ongoing "whack-a-mole" game on such complicated (and changing!) terrain, I think it simply makes more sense to just change the ground rules such that ALL those HTML-based tricks are denied to [only!] unrecognized/unauthorized/untrusted senders in one fell swoop. Does it result in a few changes and inconveniences? Sure it does, during the transition period. ANY change we propose is going to result in some adjustments. I think the nature of these adjustments are explainable, fairly understandable even to relatively clueless users, and have a high payback. And again, the fact that the SAME permissions-list mechanism would also deal a MAJOR blow to worms/viruses/trojans is a real nice bonus, too. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 13:37:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26353 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OHbGa20812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UrjI-0005PL-Rl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26285; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UrjG-0004kS-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UrjB-0004kP-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Urj3-0005JF-5T; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UriX-0005Hq-7a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:36:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26217 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:36:27 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UriV-0004jK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:36:27 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UriK-0004hh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:36:16 -0400 Received: (cpmta 26719 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 10:06:54 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 24 Jun 2003 10:06:54 -0700 X-Sent: 24 Jun 2003 17:06:54 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:05:25 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:32:46 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Web bugs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:32:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > BTW it's even more complex now, since many legit mail-sending operations consider "web bugs" (1x1 pixel external IMGs with an identifying tag) to be good practice in measuring mail views. :( It's a *major* PITA to those who read their E-mail offline, though. Again, senders are increasingly arrogant about the demands they place on their supposedly willing recipients. In exchange, I see *no* reason we recipients ought to be especially concerned about their "measuring mail views" if it inconveniences us (as it clearly does). Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 14:07:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28475 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OI7GM26000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UsCK-0006lH-K7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28464; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UsCG-0005Kv-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UsCB-0005Ks-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UsC5-0006fY-I0; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UsBq-0006eX-83 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28397 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:28 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UsBY-0005Ih-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:28 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UsBE-0005GO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:09 -0400 Received: (cpmta 11812 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 11:05:13 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 24 Jun 2003 11:05:13 -0700 X-Sent: 24 Jun 2003 18:05:13 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:05:01 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:32:22 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Viruses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:32:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Ironically, it may well be that a single company can stem the tide of spam alone and, remarkably enough, it's Mr Gates' company. OK, Barry, after sitting back on this one for a while, I'm going to pick up your bait. Certainly there is a LOT they could do, but in practice probably little of that is at the OS level. > Apparently much of the spam is forwarded via computers which have been infected by viruses turning them into unwaitting mail slaves for spammers. There's LITTLE excuse for allowing that to happen. > Reviewing the most common of these viruses, such as Jeem, sobig.a and Proxy-guzu, indicates that they all target Microsoft's winows operating system. Versions up to and including their latest XP and ME. Of course. If you were writing a virus, you'd also write it to propagate on the most likely systems you expected the code to land in. OF COURSE virus authors target Outlook, Windows, Word, etc. There have been plenty of worms on other systems, but those are a minority of attackable systems so virus authors OF COURSE go for the more fertile ground. > There's a reason for this: Microsoft's operating systems are vulnerable to viruses. ALL operating systems are vulnerable to viruses, as long as the systems are user-programmable (or program-extensible). OK, your digital watch, your microwave oven (probably), and your laser printer probably aren't vulnerable to viruses. But that's because nobody else can much change their code, either. > Other operating systems, or at least late-releases (e.g., Max OSX), are not susceptible to viruses. And just what is the "magic bullet" that you think magically makes those systems "not susceptible"? I don't believe that there IS such a magic bullet. Any computer on which software can be installed could theoretically have BAD software installed. I don't believe it's possible by any kind of automated means to determine absolutely that an arbitrary subject program is bug-free, or even that it will terminate. And in particular, a WORD macro virus (for instance) which works on a Windows-based OS will probably work on a Mac-based OS too... since the level of abstraction provided by the macro facility SPECIFICALLY shields the executing macro from vagaries based on the underlying OS. > The technology for immunizing OS's against viruses has been known for about 40 years (before viruses even existed!) It's been commonly used in other OS's for about 20 years. What "immunizing technology" are you referring to? The US military has spent many billions of dollars over the years in research trying to find "absolutely secure" operating systems, and although they have made some fairly impressive strides, I don't think that any of them has gotten anywhere near 100%. > And it's been available on consumer/desktop PC-class machines for at least 10 years. What "it" do you think "immunizes" OSes? And even if "it" did, what makes you think that other vulnerabilities can't be opened by buggy or ill-conceived applications? > So why does Microsoft continue to provide opportunity for spammers unnecessarily? While I would never claim that Microsoft has done everything possible to prevent abuse (far from it, at times) a LOT of the problem is at the application level, and not at the OS level proper. Buffer overflow exploits, in particular, (along with similar array subscript range or string boundary violations) are readily possible with processors which permit unconstrained address calculations, and (also in particular) C is pretty much totally undisciplined about such things (and that's just as much true of C on Mac or Unix systems as it is for C on Windows-based systems). The better solution is really to put restrictions in place on incoming material (and E-mail is our focus here) such that potentially dangerous executable stuff (and in practice, this means ActiveX-type stuff, scripting, and potentially malicious attachments) simply aren't allowed to be delivered unless they come from pre-arranged (or post-permitted, maybe), _trusted_ people who we EXPECT such type of stuff to come from. Just as nobody should ever be stupid enough to run an executable that arrives in an E-mail from someone they don't know, they similarly shouldn't run executables that arrive from someone they DO know unless they know what it's about, and have verified (separately) with the sender why it was sent and that it's legitimate. There is no reason why such windows of vulnerability should be left open for no reason at all. I got a spam just a day or two ago shilling for a porn site and crowing about how "no credit card required". The link said, in essence, "to connect to this site directly using your modem, CLICK HERE." Under the concealment of the HTML, the link pointed to a URL of .exe type. Most lusers wouldn't realize (of course) the implication of the (truthful) prompt... that the executable was planning to hang up the person's Internet connection through their local ISP, then redial on the user's modem to a 900-type international telephone number at staggering per-minute charges, which will of course bill to the luser's phone bill to arrive a month later. (And of course, if it's a business line at the person's employer, they'll probably never even notice...! What employee ever sees and studies the monthly phone bill for your desk's/computer's phone line?) Such scams, by the way, also tend to (besides the porn site itself) embody proxy servers so that even after the visitor tires of whatever porn is on offer, tends to stay connected to the Net and continue their other net surfing through the new, international premium pay-by-the-minute dialup connection, totally unaware that they're no longer connected through their own local ISP. Anyhow, here's just another example of a case where the original deception that sets this whole mess up comes from the fact that the original message is HTML-burdened, permitting the spammer to hide the downloading of an executable inside an "invisible" link that just looks like any other "click here" hyperlink. Of course, it would be nearly as easy to include an executable attachment (which is the way that most such stuff has been pulled in the past). Notably, my permission-list idea would most likely squash BOTH of these deceptions... no unauthorized attachments, and forcing the user to copy-and-paste a more-likely-visibly-dubious URL into their browser before going to get it. Of course, on my machine this particular scam wouldn't work, since I don't use a dialup internet connection to begin with. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 14:28:22 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00961 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OIRsY29573 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:27:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UsWI-0007gu-QJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:27:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00874; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UsWG-0005Ze-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:27:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UsWA-0005ZY-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:27:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UsVR-0007ay-8D; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UsVG-0007Zy-D4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:26:50 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00597 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5OIQPOs027704 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:26:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306241826.h5OIQPOs027704@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:26:25 -0600 (MDT) > From: gep2@terabites.com > ... > Any computer on which software can be installed could theoretically have BAD > software installed. What major operating systems are configured by default to install software from distant servers unknown to a computer system's owners? > I don't believe it's possible by any kind of automated > means to determine absolutely that an arbitrary subject program is bug-free, or > even that it will terminate. The halting problem is a red herring. > And in particular, a WORD macro virus (for instance) which works on a > Windows-based OS will probably work on a Mac-based OS too... since the level of > abstraction provided by the macro facility SPECIFICALLY shields the executing > macro from vagaries based on the underlying OS. That's another red herring. I believe the WORD macro virus hole was closed long ago. I know that similar holes in emacs and vi were closed many years ago. > ... > The US military has spent many billions of dollars over the years in research > trying to find "absolutely secure" operating systems, and although they have > made some fairly impressive strides, ... That's yet another red herring. The DOD trusted systems efforts have been targeted mostly at keeping secrets within a system instead of preventing the installation of bad software. Historically, the standard way (on at least some such trusted systems in my personal experience) for vendors to install software is to be escorted past the armed guards with your media, bypass and turn off the MAC (mandatory access control) system, install the software, restore the MAC stuff, and leave your media to be destroyed. I think the DOD's trusted system stuff is a boondoggle, waste of money, and worse, gives people a false sense of security, but that's also irrelevant here. > Buffer overflow exploits, in particular, (along with similar array subscript > ... are powerless unless the exploit is in software that has permission to install software or at least execute software. Worries about such issues is why MTAs often run in "chroot jails". This is yet another red herring. > Just as nobody should ever be stupid enough to run an executable that arrives in > an E-mail from someone they don't know, they similarly shouldn't run executables > that arrive from someone they DO know unless they know what it's about, and have > verified (separately) with the sender why it was sent and that it's legitimate. > There is no reason why such windows of vulnerability should be left open for no > reason at all. What major system is configured by default to execute programs that arrive in email and is configured by default gives the MUA of every user the right to install software? What major system system vendor touts as an advantage the lack of a "sandbox" in its competetors to Java? What does any of this have to do with ASRG or with spam in general? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 15:04:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03451 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OJ4Kh02819 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ut5Y-0000jO-S3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03430; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut5V-00063U-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut5Q-00063R-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ut5E-0000gK-Pd; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:04:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ut4a-0000fc-Gp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:03:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03369 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut43-00062j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:02:47 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut3t-00062K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:02:37 -0400 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19Ut1v-00070L-00 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:00:35 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19Usnz-0005q4-00 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:46:11 +0200 From: wayne Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <200306241826.h5OIQPOs027704@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nbd9k97iZ0EMjNYpu/ipyGJ1i6Y= Subject: [Asrg] Re: Viruses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:46:26 -0500 In <200306241826.h5OIQPOs027704@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: >> From: gep2@terabites.com > >> ... >> Any computer on which software can be installed could theoretically have BAD >> software installed. > > What major operating systems are configured by default to install > software from distant servers unknown to a computer system's owners? Debian Linux does. Oh, wait, you said "major OSes". Nevermind! -wayne _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 15:08:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03890 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OJ89304506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ut9F-0001Ab-9R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03815; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut9C-00065c-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut96-00065Z-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ut97-00017O-0g; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ut8s-00015A-2N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:07:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03780 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut8p-00065K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:07:43 -0400 Received: from earth.tc.umn.edu ([160.94.5.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ut8e-00064z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:07:32 -0400 Received: by earth.tc.umn.edu; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:04 -0500 From: Steven F Siirila To: wayne Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Viruses Message-ID: <20030624190703.GA21054@earth.tc.umn.edu> References: <200306241826.h5OIQPOs027704@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:07:03 -0500 On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:46:26PM -0500, wayne wrote: > In <200306241826.h5OIQPOs027704@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver writes: > > >> From: gep2@terabites.com > > > >> ... > >> Any computer on which software can be installed could theoretically have BAD > >> software installed. > > > > What major operating systems are configured by default to install > > software from distant servers unknown to a computer system's owners? > > Debian Linux does. Oh, wait, you said "major OSes". Nevermind! Apparently ASUS Display Drivers for Windows XP! I traced an FTP session from my computer to Taiwan at the precise time I was installing those drivers. (This was a freshly-installed Windows XP behind both a hardware and software firewall, in case you think the system was compromised.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 15:15:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04902 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OJFA306033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UtG2-0001ZE-60 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04834; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtG0-0006AW-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtFv-0006AT-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UtFt-0001Sr-HG; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UtEv-0001Qs-DZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:14:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04687 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtEu-00069r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:14:00 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtEj-00068T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:13:49 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5OJBgch021736; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:11:42 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2276@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Barry Shein'" , Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:11:41 -0700 Points of information: The DDoS exploits against the DNS roots were launched from Linux boxes. Worms existed on the Internet and DECNet long before Windows Worms and viruses will always do better if they attack a common platform than a rare one for the simple reason that to propagate a virus need only pass the infection on to an average of more than one new host per host infected. None of the O/S platforms in use today scores well on the security front. Microsoft is the only company to have made a public recognition of this fact. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:04 PM > To: Yakov Shafranovich > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates > > > > >Why I Hate Spam > >And what we're doing about it. > > > >BY BILL GATES > > ... > > >But a single company can't stem the tide of spam alone... > > > Ironically, it may well be that a single company can stem the tide of > spam alone and, remarkably enough, it's Mr Gates' company. > > Apparently much of the spam is forwarded via computers which have been > infected by viruses turning them into unwaitting mail slaves for > spammers. > > Reviewing the most common of these viruses, such as Jeem, sobig.a and > Proxy-guzu, indicates that they all target Microsoft's winows > operating system. Versions up to and including their latest XP and ME. > > There's a reason for this: Microsoft's operating systems are > vulnerable to viruses. > > Other operating systems, or at least late-releases (e.g., Max OSX), > are not susceptible to viruses. > > The technology for immunizing OS's against viruses has been known for > about 40 years (before viruses even existed!) It's been commonly used > in other OS's for about 20 years. And it's been available on > consumer/desktop PC-class machines for at least 10 years. > > So why does Microsoft continue to provide opportunity for spammers > unnecessarily? > > And why does Mr Gates act like he does not know this? > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 15:25:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05940 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OJPAW09273 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UtPi-0002PU-AS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05920; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtPg-0006KA-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtPa-0006K7-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UtPZ-0002MQ-Ic; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UtPX-0002M6-RI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:24:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05910 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtPW-0006Ju-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:24:58 -0400 Received: from bay2-f158.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.158] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UtPL-0006J4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:24:47 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:23:05 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:23:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textbook example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 19:23:05.0879 (UTC) FILETIME=[09ABD270:01C33A86] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:23:05 -0200 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >At 6/24/2003, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >>Here's sorta a good textbook example of relatively common spammer tricks. >>Let's consider it: >>chanty MycXY42jUmagernJQbgbHxg%3D%3D unselfishly o-eVm >>{a href="http://hgabriela@210.15.187.49/dtomi/";> .... > >Out of the twenty spam messages I received this morning at one specific >account, two were text based and not HTML as follows: .................. >Return-Path: >From: "Monty Kambo" >To: xfiles@pocketmail.com > >Every extensi0n you want to register or renew is available here and it is >che@p. > >Most popular: .net .info .tv >Just released: .club .travel .sport > >Over 100,000 names registered so far. > >http://www.domainsforpeople.com .................. Well, look at the two textbook examples from another perspective, for they both tell us something else, the end destination for the spammer, his/her domain. This is real information, not fake (if it isn't a spammers version of a DDoS). Skip the rest and use this. URL's need to be correct to work, independent if a HTML or a ASCII message. Some web coding of the address is common, but normally simple to decode when analyzing the incoming, but if there does not say "http:" it would not work. It is a bit worse with base64, yes. Anyway, with a limited number of spammers and most likely a limited number of domains this is useful. Vernon's list the other day had more in common with my own list, than should be expected, since he had far more web-shops in his list, while I have more web-sites and 50% from Asia. Of some 7-8000 entries in both lists, 2.500 where common. If there is a "infinite" number of spammer domains, it should have been less. Unfortunately the HTML discussion above as such is redundant. Most of us sits in a world where we have to service others with a mail service, for better or for worse. When doing that we have to remember some simple things: 1. The users want a simple-to-use service 2. They have a reason for using email instead of mail 3. Mail they don't want is always spam, even if we don't think so 4. Mail we label spam, is not always spam in their eyes 5. What we thing is appropriate as a mail format does not have any bearing what so ever on these users They want to do tables, they want to do bold and (how horrible it may be) they want to use Outlook b'cause Oncle Bill included it for automatic install in Windows. I.e. they want a function without thinking even if it is at a risk for their PC 6. They do not want to change their e-mail address 7. They want to reach their mail when on holiday or at work (a webmail interface) 8. They do not want to see any strange mails that require them to answer a question or so to communicate with rich Auntie Agatha. In short, they want us to cut spam automatically, so they do not need to bother. And we can't change this. On the other hand, spammers (I exclude the DDoS types) want to: a. send us ads/web pages that get us to visit a web site with a sales pitch b. to call a phone number to talk with a sales person so they get the traffic and earn money from it. What we think about spam is irrelevant, it is what our customers and the spammers think that is important. If we avoid this focus, we are never to be able to get anywhere. I seem to remember that the charter says something about to create a common "ground" before "solving" the issue. Well, where is this common ground, mostly I see complicated solutions, requiring a lot of either client or MTA changes, but little common ground. Look at the above, we canl never fulfill every users expectation, but we need to find some simple common principles about spam, that is OK for everybody (excluding the spammers), what is usable to handle the issue at hand. The basic definition must therefore be: "Spam is a form of electronic marketing, where the receiver not asked to receive it and also stands for the main part of the transmission cost". This accounts both for the guy not wanting spam, as well as the "Shopping Channel"-guy, loving spam. They have not asked for it and they do pay for the main part of the cost, through their connection cost or ISP charges. Going to a web page with ads, we do a active action for. With spam we don't (except for sometime have had released our address in a Usenet discussion, a web page or registration at some function for free) The second definition must be: "Spam is electronic marketing, where the sender generally uses a non-functional sender address as well as sometimes including non-functional information how to end sending". Really, opt-out is a joke. It didn't even worked during Spamford's days. The third definition is: "Spam is a sociological phenomena, not a technological". Spam uses technology, but this is only a mean, not the objective. It also makes it harder to beat. Virus is simpler, since they are the objective, even if they also is a sociological phenomena. Spam want _us_ to _do_ something. The fourth definition, is what I wrote in the start: "Spam do contain some information we can trust, as a web address or phone numbers". What can we get from this crap? Well, the spammer want something in return from _us_, for sending us that letter, that we go in to his/her website / call the Call Center to purchase a product. But the spammer is two entities, the owner of the product and the sender (sometimes the same person). If the spammer is the sender, he/she want to get paid for every lead, his/her customer get from the action. If the spammer is this customer, he/she want to have as many leads as possible, because that increases the number of sold products. If the seller don't get any leads, the sender doesn't get any assignments, eg. we lose a spammer. The best way to cut the number of leads a seller gets, is to take out the usage of the website address, i.e. a website in a spam is included in the blocklist -> reduction of leads, since no-one sees the address. If the seller change address to get around, honeytraps collect it and include it againg in the blocklist. Skip sender addresses and such, concentrate on stabile content. To use the problem's sociological features, as a base of handling it, must be a better way than raw technology. But those not having addresses/numbers, as Nigerians? I just got such a letter, that succeeded to pass my filter, it did have a phone number in it. Nigerians also rely on two-way communication, they can't change mail address in the middle of the communication with the target, therefore their addresses usually is very functional for a longer time. That nigerian was the first I got to my test mailbox for 3 months, though some 10-15 ended up in the spambox and those was taken on their sender domains, collected before february. And if done correctly, a likely solution should also required low infrastructure impact, if run as a Milter type of filter, as an added benefit. Kurt Magnusson (Leads is what the marketing whizzes calls when they get a confirmed contact with a potential customer.) _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jun 24 18:00:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12844 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OLxs901854 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:59:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UvpS-0000Tp-5n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:59:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12809; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UvpO-0007cK-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:59:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UvpJ-0007cG-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:59:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Uvob-0000RW-4l; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Uvo5-0000Qr-Cu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:58:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12784 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uvnf-0007bs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:58:03 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UvnU-0007bp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:57:52 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip100-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.100]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E174436A44 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:18:57 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030624171857.B2178@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030620112056.00ba1b90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030623070817.B6973@m433> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from nazgul@somewhere.com on Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 02:19:13PM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:18:57 -0400 On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 02:19:13PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote > At 7:09 AM -0400 6/23/03, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Many details remain to be filled in. Comments, suggestions ? > > 1. There are two aspects of depending on email as a business. One is > sending. But for most businesses receiving is even more important. > And that's receiving from end users. How do you do that without > involving spam? A business can "receive" via a webform. As a matter of fact, a customer can keep track of their order via webpages. Businesses can get around spam by using webforms for incoming requests. > 2. While this creates a desirable service for businesses, and it > potentially avoids the danger of negative legislation in the personal > email space, does it have any attributes that directly help eliminate > spam in the personal email space? The mere fact that it's "personal email", rather than a business facility will allow end-users to use more effective filters, even though they risk more false positives. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 12:11:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19377 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:11:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PGAqV07122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:10:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCrE-0001qf-PF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:10:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19307; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCoT-0001Uq-LF; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCnm-0001K3-W9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:07:19 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com (peacock.verisign.com [65.205.251.73]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19144 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5PG1tch020370; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:01:55 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2283@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Walter Dnes'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] Point of information... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:01:54 -0700 > Most of them are followed. However, some aren't. Netscape started > the HTML-email garbage, and MS followed. Actually Nathaniel Bornstein started the idea of richtext email before the Web and when the Web appeared it made a lot of sense to move from the richtext idea to HTML. Netscape started the Javascript security nightmare and added a lot of the unsafe features unilaterally. > > Hmm, why are we here? What do you imagine the product of this group > > likely to be? > > One or more RFCs that are hopefully followed/enforced. That > qualification is the sticking point. This is a research group, not a standards group. The degree to which any recommendation is followed will depend on the way it is presented and the extent to which people agree with them. That in turn depends on the extent that a group can achieve industry buy-in for any proposals it makes. Attacking HTML is tilting at windmills. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 12:42:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20778 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PGgGW13012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:42:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCTX-0006Lm-Hy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:46:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17444; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCSe-0005w5-QQ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VBzZ-0008Af-Th for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:15:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01777 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UxD3-00007y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:28:21 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UxBN-00006V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:26:37 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5OMtQo1020208; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:55:26 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04871; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:55:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16120.55005.858753.147963@world.std.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2276@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2276@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:55:25 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 24, 2003 at 12:11 pbaker@verisign.com (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote: > Points of information: > > The DDoS exploits against the DNS roots were launched from Linux > boxes. I don't remember that "DDoS" causing a whole lot of trouble for the net in general, a la spam. That's not an accident, a ping flood directed at 13 specific machines one night is awfully different in nature than billions and billions of spams directed at hundreds of millions of machines daily for years. > Worms existed on the Internet and DECNet long before Windows Worms are not viruses. The first internet worm, I believe the one the term was created for, was the Morris worm which would be October 1988. According to: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/winhistoryintro.mspx Windows 1.0 was released on November 10, 1983, about 5 years earlier. I suppose you could quibble semantics on what's a worm and what's a virus and so forth to fit your pre-conceived conclusions. > Worms and viruses will always do better if they attack a common platform > than a rare one for the simple reason that to propagate a virus need only > pass the infection on to an average of more than one new host per host > infected. That sounds reasonable, except that's not the problem. The problem is a memory and protection architecture in windows which allows programs run by any non-privileged user to infect boot blocks etc. Most other OS's (of any note) don't allow this. As far as I can tell MS can't "fix" this because too many applications rely on these backdoors for performance. Put another way, fixing it would break too many commercially viable applications. So we all suffer, even if we avoid MS products. > None of the O/S platforms in use today scores well on the security front. Nonsense, several score quite well if just reasonably configured and administered (and I don't mean heroics.) The problem is there is nothing you can do with any current windows system to make it secure from viruses, short of active avoidance (shut it off and it won't ever get a virus, proceed from there to your risk comfort level.) > Microsoft is the only company to have made a public recognition of this > fact. Oh what utter nonsense. Have you no shame. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 15:39:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27999 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PJd1F18565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VG6f-0004pM-IQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:39:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27991; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:38:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VG5i-0004i2-48; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:38:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VG4a-0004QQ-K5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:37:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27941 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:36:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VG4Z-0006j7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:36:51 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VG4O-0006i1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:36:40 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABX87726; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJJ53313; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates Message-ID: <001501c33b50$ef857830$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030623162741.00ba8e90@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:35:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd like to focus for a moment on the substance of Gates' editorial and avoid the Microsoft bashing going on in other threads... Gates says: "Our proposal is to create a regulatory "safe harbor"=20 status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines=20 confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." Personally, I think this sounds like a terrible idea. While it may be well-intentioned, the reality is that any "safe-harbor" will probably simply establish a privileged class of spammers. Given the tremendous lobbying pressure that will undoubtedly be applied by direct marketers, companies, etc. it is likely that the requirements for receiving "safe harbor" status will be fairly easy to meet. But, no matter how well the qualifications for safe-harbor status are set, it seems to me that this sort of proposal is focusing attention on the wrong part of the problem. A safe-harbor is really just a way of identifying some set of senders whose traffic should be let through whatever filters an ISP may put in place. But, the ultimate decision concerning what traffic should and should not be accepted remains with the actual owner of the mailbox. We can't let a focus on the ISP's needs distract us from continuing to improve the ability that users have to control what goes into the inboxes. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 16:05:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29277 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PK4Cj22865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:04:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VGV1-0005wi-VB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:04:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29195; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VGV0-000780-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:04:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VGUu-00077x-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:04:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VGUr-0005tR-1m; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VGUP-0005sP-JN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:03:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29037 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VGHU-0006rd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:50:12 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VGHJ-0006r1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:50:01 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5PJnK2Q023323; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:49:20 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'gep2@terabites.com'" , Barry Shein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:49:20 -0700 > >Plus or minus the odd serious bug or misconfiguration operating > >systems such as unix, linux, VMS, MVS, TOPS-20 (going back > 20+ years), > >etc are more or less immune to such problems. > > I guess you can claim that if you dismiss any vulnerability > as an "odd serious > bug". The only O/S security feature I am aware of that is relevant in this regard is the VMS fine grained privileges that allowed processes to be created that did not have network access or did not have file access. There is a similar feature set in Windows NT but the applications appear to be unaware of the reason it should be used. I am unaware of any equivalent system in the UNIX world, chroot is not equivalent. The .NET framework has reinstated the concept of fine grained privs but it will take many years for them to be used by applications. Finger pointing is rarely a good guide to good security practice. I remember the time when people doubted unix would get anywhere because of its notorious security problems and weak security architecture, it does not seem to have had the predicted effect. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 16:46:11 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01613 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PKjiZ00649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:45:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VH9D-0000AO-Vg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:45:43 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01566; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VH8X-0008T6-SD; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VH8C-0008Sm-QN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:44:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01505 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VH8A-0007Xt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:44:38 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VH80-0007VC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:44:28 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXM91676; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJJ66863; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" , , "'Barry Shein'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses Message-ID: <001d01c33b59$f848baf0$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:40:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Note: this thread is only very marginally relevant to the subject of this group... Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The only O/S security feature I am aware of that is relevant=20 > in this regard is the VMS fine grained privileges that=20 > allowed processes to be created that did not have network=20 > access or did not have file access. VMS also had pretty good file system access control (as did most of the Digital operating systems). Given basic access controls (Read, Write, Delete, Execute) plus access control lists on files and directories, it was very difficult to insert viruses into system files. Given a few more decades, the ex-VMS folk at Microsoft (Cutler, Bell, Bernstein, etc.) might actually be able to get Windows to the level that we had VMS back in the early 80's... After all WNT is just VMS+1... bob wyman (11.5 years with DEC starting in '79...) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 17:12:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03265 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PLACh06861 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:10:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VHWu-0001l4-JQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:10:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03102; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:10:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHWs-0000Pb-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHWm-0000PY-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:10:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VHWk-0001fw-MC; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VHVz-0001b5-Oa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:09:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02418 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHUj-0000Cp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:07:57 -0400 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHUY-0000Ce-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:07:47 -0400 Received: from jmason.org (ga065051.reshsg.uci.edu [128.195.65.51]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5PL6XB15719; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:06:34 +0100 Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 74F4B16F0D; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:07:15 +0100 (IST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681CBF7C3; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:07:15 -0700 (PDT) To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'gep2@terabites.com'" , Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses In-Reply-To: Message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" of "Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:49:20 PDT." <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20030625210715.74F4B16F0D@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:07:10 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes: >I am unaware of any equivalent system in the UNIX world, chroot is >not equivalent. grsecurity, NSA's secure linux work, and similar third-party patches. But they aren't in the mainstream kernels yet, which is what I'd like to see... --j. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 17:13:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03407 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PLD7T07722 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:13:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VHZj-00020R-OJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03369; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHZh-0000TD-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHZb-0000TA-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:12:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VHZc-0001u8-Q8; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VHZB-0001ts-Je for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:12:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03285 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHZ9-0000S8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:12:31 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VHYy-0000Qw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:12:20 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5PLBJ3L001781 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:11:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306252111.h5PLBJ3L001781@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:11:19 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > ... > The only O/S security feature I am aware of that is relevant in this > regard is the VMS fine grained privileges that allowed processes to > be created that did not have network access or did not have file > access. > > There is a similar feature set in Windows NT but the applications > appear to be unaware of the reason it should be used. > > I am unaware of any equivalent system in the UNIX world, chroot is > not equivalent. The .NET framework has reinstated the concept of fine > grained privs but it will take many years for them to be used by > applications. > > Finger pointing is rarely a good guide to good security practice. > I remember the time when people doubted unix would get anywhere > because of its notorious security problems and weak security > architecture, it does not seem to have had the predicted effect. Many UNIX flavors have extremely fine grained privileges. I've been told by people who dealt with the U.S. Dept. of Defense's tests that full-up mandatory access controls are unavoidable. That might be why many and probably most commercial UNIX flavors have (or at least had) MAC available. They also tend to have elaborate privilege inheritance mechanisms. Eg. for inetd to be able to open the sockets it needs, it must not only be running as root, but started by a process that has the rights to open those sockets and that explicitly passes those rights during the fork(). Such stuff makes for a lot of bug prone noise in control files, and elsewhere, and so it's generally disabled and suppressed for commercial customers. It's been more than 5 years since I was employed by a UNIX vendor that offered this gunk. I think a fundamental security principle is that the operating system cannot entirely trust applications to do the right things. Ignoring this principle was the foundation of the first 10 or 15 years of Microsoft security holes, where Microsoft thought or claimed that a primitive program loader and some utility routines was an "operating system." But yes, the ancient Burroughs system could be seen as an existence proof to the contrary. Perhaps in theory and certainly in press releases .NET is secure. The history of other absolutely, provably secure mechanisms from Redmond including ActiveX urge skepticism. What does any of this have to do with spam in general or the ASRG? That viruses and worms can used to pump spam from Microsoft systems doesn't seem much different from the fact that a lot of spam is pumped through open-by-default proxy programs. The spam looks the same. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 19:08:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10303 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PN8NO01046 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJNH-0000Ge-O3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10269; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJNE-0001x0-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJN8-0001wh-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJMv-0000CN-4s; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJM2-0008Pv-KJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:07:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10125 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJDL-0001ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:58:07 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJDA-0001kW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:57:56 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5PMvT87013575; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:57:29 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01435; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:57:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16122.10456.884901.716852@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses In-Reply-To: <200306252111.h5PLBJ3L001781@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> <200306252111.h5PLBJ3L001781@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:57:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 25, 2003 at 15:11 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > What does any of this have to do with spam in general or the ASRG? That's the right question because I think we've now lost the point of my bringing it up in the first place. I maintain that the primary problem with spam right now is caused by the hijacking of systems (demonstrably) by the hundreds (probably much more) to spew spam. I further maintain that without these hijacked systems spammers would be ineffective, a relatively minor nuisance. There are good, structural reasons why this is the case: a) Spamming does not provide the sort of margin needed to purchase and maintain the equipment they seem to rely on. Therefore, they must steal it. b) Even if they could acquire such equipment, and concomitant bandwidth, it would of necessity be located in a relatively static location (e.g., ip addresses), and, so, relatively easy to just block. Now, how these systems are hijacked is a subsequent topic. And, what might be done about it is yet another subsequent topic. But, this is a research group, and that is a result of my research. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 20:56:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16004 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q0uGD22756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VL3g-0005ux-9c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15996; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VL3d-0003Lo-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VL3Y-0003Ll-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VL3R-0005qf-8H; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VL3E-0005qU-3q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:55:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15976 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VL3B-0003LF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:55:45 -0400 Received: from 000-255-871.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.239.94] helo=68.27.239.94) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VL2z-0003Kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:55:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030625205450.00b41bb0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Weird spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:54:51 -0400 I received a very strange spam message, quoted below. Does anyone know what these kind of messages accomplish? ----snip--- Greetings, We need a vendor who can offer immediate supply. I'm offering $5,000 US dollars just for referring a vender which is (Actually RELIABLE in providing the below equipment) Contact details of vendor required, including name and phone #. If they turn out to be reliable in supplying the below equipment I'll immediately pay you $5,000. We prefer to work with vendor in the Boston/New York area. 1. The mind warper generation 4 Dimensional Warp Generator # 52 4350a series wrist watch with z60 or better memory adapter. If in stock the AMD Dimensional Warp Generator module containing the GRC79 induction motor, two I80200 warp stabilizers, 256GB of SRAM, and two Analog Devices isolinear modules, This unit also has a menu driven GUI accessible on the front panel XID display. All in 1 units would be great if reliable models are available 2. The special 23200 or Acme 5X24 series time transducing capacitor with built in temporal displacement. Needed with complete jumper/auxiliary system 3. A reliable crystal Ionizor with unlimited memory backup. If your vendor turns out to be reliable, I owe you $5,000. Email his details to me at: info@federalfundingprogram.com Please do not reply directly back to this email as it will only be bounced back to you. investmentfypfzdwuvzu lk igqaun srxbxspw jwwfbkqz e kryf hljs muc ----snip--- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 21:22:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA17720 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q1MBA28209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLSl-0007Ku-Rp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA17676; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLSi-0003hw-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLSc-0003ht-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLSb-0007Hp-Df; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VFDn-0001GT-RK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:42:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24880 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VFDX-000638-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:42:03 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VFDM-00062U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:41:52 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5PIhTF20295; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:43:30 -0700 From: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/11) Personal Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <29137471333.20030625114006@brandenburg.com> To: Barry Shein CC: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16120.55005.858753.147963@world.std.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2276@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> <16120.55005.858753.147963@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] viral worms, wormy viruses, and design vs. software Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:40:06 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry, >> Worms existed on the Internet and DECNet long before Windows BS> Worms are not viruses. BS> The first internet worm, I believe the one the term was created for, BS> was the Morris worm which would be October 1988. Xerox PARC created the first worm. They did some research on the topic, I believe in the mid-70s. BS> I suppose you could quibble semantics on what's a worm and what's a BS> virus and so forth to fit your pre-conceived conclusions. Actually, I think the definitions are nicely overlapping. Worms are about network communication. Viruses are about taking over a computer. One can argue that a hostile worm needs to have a viral component, to get enough control for replicating, but I would rather simply view that as a carrier/parasite (symbiotic?) relationship between a virus and a worm... >> Worms and viruses will always do better if they attack a common platform >> than a rare one for the simple reason that to propagate a virus need only >> pass the infection on to an average of more than one new host per host >> infected. BS> That sounds reasonable, except that's not the problem. Correct. BS> The problem is a memory and protection architecture in windows which BS> allows programs run by any non-privileged user to infect boot blocks BS> etc. right. BS> Most other OS's (of any note) don't allow this. some OS's have superior security architectures, but that does not prevent them from being run badly. it has often been true that actual unix configuration and operations have sucked. on the other hand, unix is often far more amenable to fixing the problem than are some other os's. BS> The problem is there is nothing you can do with any current windows BS> system to make it secure from viruses, short of active avoidance (shut BS> it off and it won't ever get a virus, proceed from there to your risk BS> comfort level.) Beyond configuration and operation, the other critical issue is software quality, starting with the operating system. If the design is good, but the software coding is bad, the game is over. Operating system software that requires constant security patches probably was not written with very good quality assurance procedures. This is not surprising, since most of the industry has a focus on creating new features, rather than taking the considerable extra effort to ensure software quality. Quality takes time. This means fewer features or later delivery to market. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 21:27:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18245 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q1RDP29833 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:27:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLXc-0007kx-Qx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:27:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18208; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLXZ-0003o1-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:27:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLXU-0003ny-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:27:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLVV-0007YR-N0; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLTu-0007UN-DE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:23:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA17748 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLTc-0003iu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:23:04 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLTM-0003gM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:22:48 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5Q1KZ5U025169; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306260120.h5Q1KZ5U025169@nic-naa.net> To: asrg@ietf.org, public-p3p-spec@w3.org cc: rmcallahan@att.com From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Subject: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:20:35 -0400 Folks, This was sent to nanog earlier in the day. Asrg contributors would help the (US jurisdiction) FTC's "Do Not Call" (phone spam) service roll-out by letting Richard Callahan know how to keep the eventual AT&T GS mails from being some systems' false-positive, and not delivered. I'll sumarize to the list responses that I'm copied on, using white-out appropriately if requested. The question will come up again. P3P contributors are noticed simply because ... watching the US go down the opt-out path is -- er -- interesting. Semi-related, the special WHOIS:43 (and other kludges) workshop of the Montreal meeting of ICANN should be winding up, and I'll sumarize what others who attended sumarize elsewhere, but the bottom line is something along the lines of you-know-already -- (US) law-enforcement and (WIPO) trademark interests claim compelling interests in manditory spam-prone databases, and the (non-US) ccTLD registry operators and GAC reps reply that isn't a town in California (or Maine for you who know how Maine's towns are named). ICANN head-butting, or butt-heads. Oh. The going price for 30 million (that's 3 times 10 to the sixth) email addresses culled from the combined whois databases is ... US$30. I just can't wait for enum-on-port-43, oops ... my phone is ringing... Cheers, Eric ------- Forwarded Message Subject: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:08:08 -0500 Message-ID: <729306F70E13DB43AA2D7AA0FAD4715D05441718@OCCLUST03EVS1.ugd.att.com> From: "Callahan, Richard M, SOLGV" To: Cc: "Windelberg, Marjorie L, SOLGV" , "Weiss, Christine G, SOLGV" Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nic-naa.net id h5PI9I5U023796 Good Afternoon and forgive the new guy if I break any rules or conventions. I work for AT&T Government Solutions and we are about to launch the Do Not Call Registry for the Federal Trade Commission. At a high level this allows consumers to register their phone numbers to keep most telemarketers from calling their homes. Penalties for calling a consumer on the list can be $11K per call and enforcement begins in October. We are launching consumer registrations on Friday. My concern: - every registration using the web generates an email which must be opened to complete the registration process We are looking at the potential of MILLIONS OF EMAILS PER DAY beginning Friday. These will be from the same address and have the same subject line. I am worried about denial of service or blocking by spam filters if providers are not aware this is coming. I am hoping this group is a good medium to get the word out to inform the community of this impending event. At this time I am unable to provide the link or email address, but will do so on Thursday evening if it is of value. Any thoughts? Richard M. Callahan Client Business Manager AT&T Government Solutions Office: (703)506-5780 Mobile: (703)608-0665 Fax: (703)245-3749 ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 21:42:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19286 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q1gCh01279 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLm8-0000KW-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19250; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLm4-000431-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLlx-00042y-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLlx-0000Ga-8K; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLlB-0000E2-Tm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:41:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19168 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLl8-00040u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:41:10 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLkq-00040i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:40:53 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5Q1ds5U025245; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306260139.h5Q1ds5U025245@nic-naa.net> To: Dave Crocker cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] viral worms, wormy viruses, and design vs. software In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:40:06 PDT." <29137471333.20030625114006@brandenburg.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:39:54 -0400 To my perpetual chagrin, neither of my (evil-cabal) employers, the Bull/ICL/Siemens/Olivetti/Nixdorf, nor IBM/HP/Sun covens, managed to prevent the *nix market share from shrinking significantly. Adding a kcats sdrawkcab unencumbered variant didn't significantly alter the processor, or application (operating system) desktop market shares. So, while it is true that *nixes can be bought and misconfigured with ignorance and contempt for consequent damages (theft of b/w, cycles, and U/I induced carpel tunnel), the overwhelming majority of machines that are plonked on residential Ethernets hail from Redmond. So, for that portion of the problem that Barry identified, the acquire, expend, discard (it gets cuter the more I think about it, corse grained distributed parallel computation with error detection, process migration, restart, and that's just on the send-side. I'm sure the receive-side is neat too) orgy in the ip/cdn and xdsl swamps, Redmond is the prevailing, and preferred provider of launch platforms. I think its all Bill Gates' fault, but I would have been a gazillionaire if Gary Kildall had decided to come into DRI the day the three suits from Armonk came courting, which may color my thinking. Some. Doing Unix standards may have colored my hair too. Uh, any *nix-only or Mac-only ISPs, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 21:59:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20307 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q1xDp06948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VM2b-0001nn-RR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20288; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VM2Y-0004JJ-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VM2T-0004JG-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VM2P-0001jE-IL; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VM1t-0001il-0B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:58:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20255 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VM1a-0004Ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:58:10 -0400 Received: from cs6625137-153.austin.rr.com ([66.25.137.153] helo=kinison.puremagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VM1P-0004I5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:58:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kinison.puremagic.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h5Q1vA7s012348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:57:11 -0500 From: Evan Harris To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] New proposal for spam blocking: Greylisting In-Reply-To: <200306230039.h5N0d3Q0008753@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:57:10 -0500 (CDT) It should be noted that the 30% is actually quite a low estimate of the effectiveness, which was based on numbers derived from a slightly similar implementation. But the newer implementation has significant advancements that make a marked increase in the effectiveness, as many others are coming to realize as they start implementing it. Here's a key quote from a user on the greylisting-users list hosted at http://lists.puremagic.com/ > RBLs are weak when new ip addresses are used to spam. Greylists are weak > when the same ip address is used for repeated spam. Combined they can work > better than either alone since each attacks the others weakness. > - Martin Dempsey Evan On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Elric Pedder" > > > ... > > Regardless, I'm not an advocate of greylisting. I agree with > > the points you and others have made and the most significant is > > that it has a relatively short life span. However it is one of > > the more interesting solutions to appear recently. > > I agree with the last sentence, but not all of the rest. Others have > reported that similar tactics are around 30% effective. The high > effectiveness reported here might be because, as was said, the high > rate included dictionary attacks. You'd expect dictionary attack spam > to be particularly likely to be "hit-and-run." > > My random guess is that should it become popular, its effectiveness will > drop from 30% to 10-20%, because it will ever become universal and many > spammers blocked by it will choose to send to more addresses than go to > the substantial trouble to send to the same targets through the same open > proxies. If I'm right, 10-20% is nothing to sneeze at, and is as good as > or better than the realistic prospects of several other, purely theoretical > spam defenses whose advocates promise us more. > > Note that greylisting can be seen as a variety of quarantine mechanism. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 22:47:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22974 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q2lGi17898 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VMn6-0004eJ-7c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22964; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMn2-0004se-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMmx-0004sb-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VMmr-0004Zp-7K; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:47:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VMm8-0004Z8-D0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:46:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22950 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMm4-0004sV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:46:12 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMlt-0004sS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:46:02 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5Q2jTIY022492 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:45:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306260245.h5Q2jTIY022492@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Weird spam References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:45:29 -0600 (MDT) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > At 8:54 PM -0400 6/25/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >I received a very strange spam message, quoted below. Does anyone > >know what these kind of messages accomplish? > > Same as hoaxes and graffiti. The knowledge of knowing that your > message is being seen by thousands of people. That one's been around > for a while. ALong with the guy looking for a time machine and a few > others. Some commentators in NANAE claim that this guy is the same as the time machine guy and that he's seriously distrubed. See http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22unlimited+memory+backup%22+group%3A*.email > One more reason why the definition of "spam" should not include the > word "commercial". Yes, but charity and political spam is more common and so better examples outside the political and helping professions who, like most people, insist "Spam is that which I don't do." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 22:55:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23193 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q2q8Z19523 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:52:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VMro-00054o-EM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:52:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23075; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMrk-0004u3-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:52:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMrf-0004u0-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VMrh-0004yL-6y; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VMrI-0004wk-Ea for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23048 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMrE-0004tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:32 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VMr4-0004tg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:22 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2484917; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:03 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] Spammers looking for sites that don't bounce? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:50:54 -0400 On another mailing list (still waiting for permission to quote), someone running an ISP made the following claim. He says that if he sets up his mail server to blackhole spam instead of bounce it, the spammer shortly shifts to a different IP address with slightly different text. He claims they are seeding the spam with known bad addresses, and if they don't get back a failed status from the SMTP server, they know that their spam is getting trapped by filters. I don't have any idea what methodology he's using, and without a good control group to compare with this could be just a case of seeing lots of spam. However conceptually it makes sense. It's the inverse of checking for bounces on valid addresses, and it would allow a spammer to fine-tune their message to get through filters. Can anyone confirm this? -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 23:13:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23671 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q3Cq525412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:12:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNBs-0006bn-KW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:12:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23661; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNBq-00053E-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:12:50 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNBl-00053B-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:12:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNB1-0006Rr-Nm; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:11:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNAG-0006Qj-Jx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:11:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23590 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VN9x-00051W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:10:53 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VN9m-00051S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:10:42 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5Q3AawS027940 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:10:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306260310.h5Q3AawS027940@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammers looking for sites that don't bounce? References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:10:36 -0600 (MDT) > From: Kee Hinckley > ... > He says that if he sets up his mail server to blackhole spam instead > of bounce it, the spammer shortly shifts to a different IP address > with slightly different text. He claims they are seeding the spam > with known bad addresses, and if they don't get back a failed status > from the SMTP server, they know that their spam is getting trapped by > filters. > > I don't have any idea what methodology he's using, and without a good > control group to compare with this could be just a case of seeing > lots of spam. However conceptually it makes sense. It's the inverse > of checking for bounces on valid addresses, and it would allow a > spammer to fine-tune their message to get through filters. > > Can anyone confirm this? As stated, that makes limited sense, because it is based on the assumption that filters reject spam. In fact many filters silently discard, or rather, in effect like with a 250-OK SMTP status. Consider most procmail recipies. Yes, the possibility of false positives urge filters not lie, but that's not always possible (e.g. usually not with procmail)and many people prefer to not leak information about their filters to spammers. There is a related scenario that makes more sense. Contributors to NANAE have reported that some spammers use almost certainly bogus addresses (e.g. 15 random letters) to determine whether an SMTP server lies about bogus addresses. If a server answers "no such user," then throwing a dictionary of 50,000 common user names at it will yield a bunch of "confirmed" addresses that can be sold or spammed later. If not, then such a dictionary attack is a waste of time. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 23:30:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24063 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q3UDC29422 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNSf-0007eT-4V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24055; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNSd-00058f-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNSX-00058c-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNST-0007bQ-8s; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNRq-0007af-73 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:29:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24050 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNRZ-00058S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:29:05 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNRO-000584-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:28:54 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5Q3S1ch014953; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:28:01 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2295@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Weird spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:28:01 -0700 It is probably going to turn out to be an advance fee fraud. Making out that you are derranged is a common trick amongst con artists. Consider how likely it is that someone who gets caught in a scheme that is as demented as this one is going to complain to the police or if they do that they will be taken seriously. There are other possible explanations. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:45 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Weird spam > > > > From: Kee Hinckley > > > ... > > At 8:54 PM -0400 6/25/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > >I received a very strange spam message, quoted below. Does anyone > > >know what these kind of messages accomplish? > > > > Same as hoaxes and graffiti. The knowledge of knowing that your > > message is being seen by thousands of people. That one's > been around > > for a while. ALong with the guy looking for a time machine > and a few > > others. > > Some commentators in NANAE claim that this guy is the same as the > time machine guy and that he's seriously distrubed. See > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22unlimited+memory+backup%2 2+group%3A*.email > One more reason why the definition of "spam" should not include the > word "commercial". Yes, but charity and political spam is more common and so better examples outside the political and helping professions who, like most people, insist "Spam is that which I don't do." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jun 25 23:41:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24218 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q3fBt00836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNdH-0000DG-FJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24201; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNdF-0005A9-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNd9-0005A6-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNd7-00005D-2x; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VNcP-0008WT-51 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:40:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24189 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:40:13 -0400 (EDT) From: william@elan.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNcN-00059z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:40:15 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VNcC-00059r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:40:04 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h5Q10w0N012619 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:00:58 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h5Q10wVJ012615 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:00:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammers looking for sites that don't bounce? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT) I can confirm this. They are using 10+ random names for email at the known isp domains with more then one name like that used. Very similar attempts happen from both blackholed ip blocks and from other ip blocks. I'v so far found two of these correlations in the logs and its not easy to notice it. This is yet another technique spammers use to prepare for mass mailing when they have multiple servers and want maximum effectiveness. On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote: > On another mailing list (still waiting for permission to quote), > someone running an ISP made the following claim. > > He says that if he sets up his mail server to blackhole spam instead > of bounce it, the spammer shortly shifts to a different IP address > with slightly different text. He claims they are seeding the spam > with known bad addresses, and if they don't get back a failed status > from the SMTP server, they know that their spam is getting trapped by > filters. > > I don't have any idea what methodology he's using, and without a good > control group to compare with this could be just a case of seeing > lots of spam. However conceptually it makes sense. It's the inverse > of checking for bounces on valid addresses, and it would allow a > spammer to fine-tune their message to get through filters. > > Can anyone confirm this? > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 00:29:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25287 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q4TDg13761 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VONl-0003Zs-AM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25258; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VONi-0005Mn-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VONc-0005Mk-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VONY-0003VK-MN; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:29:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VOMY-0003Rj-PA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:28:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25219 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VOMW-0005MQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:27:56 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VOML-0005MA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:27:45 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2485110; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:27:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200306260310.h5Q3AawS027940@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200306260310.h5Q3AawS027940@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Vernon Schryver From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammers looking for sites that don't bounce? Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:26:19 -0400 At 9:10 PM -0600 6/25/03, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > He says that if he sets up his mail server to blackhole spam instead >> of bounce it, the spammer shortly shifts to a different IP address >> with slightly different text. He claims they are seeding the spam >> with known bad addresses, and if they don't get back a failed status > > from the SMTP server, they know that their spam is getting trapped by >As stated, that makes limited sense, because it is based on the >assumption that filters reject spam. In fact many filters silently I think you misread what I said. I said that they are specifically looking for NON-rejected messages to fake addresses as a sign that mail is being filtered out without being bounced. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 00:33:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25397 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q4X8C14912 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VORY-0003sR-Bi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25390; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VORV-0005O6-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VORQ-0005O3-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VORR-0003m8-6e; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VOQx-0003ls-Qh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:32:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25384 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:32:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VOQv-0005No-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:32:29 -0400 Received: from 000-234-540.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.155.99] helo=68.27.155.99 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VOQj-0005NM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:32:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Walter Dnes , ASRG list From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:30:54 -0400 At 07:09 AM 6/23/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:23:09AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > > From the charter: > > "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent > > across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we > > generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This > > means that an individual or organization should be able to express > > consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the > > architecture support those desires. " > > > > We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. > > First lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what > > goes into it. >[..] > >The Proposal >============ > Business phone lines cost more than residential phone lines, and ditto >for business versus residential ISP connections. The best analogy is >regular paper mail. Ordinary letters are often insufficient for >business and/or legal purposes. If you want to guarantee speedy >delivery (or delivery, period) you expect to pay extra for registered >mail or for a courier. Businesses will probably accept "business ISPs" >that guarantee delivery *TO CUSTOMERS OF THAT OR ANOTHER BUSINESS ISP*. What about interoperability? How will different email providers decided who is responsible for paying what? Also, who will enforce such structure? Postal services of many countries use a UN affiliated organization called the International Postal Union which settles these matters. Is it good to put control into one body? > I am suggesting a major paradigm change. Up til now people have been >used to "THE email system". My proposal is to rename "THE email system" >to "Personal Email" and create a parallel system called "Business Email". >"Business Email" would cost extra, and *TRANSMISSION* would be only via a >per-email and per-megabyte user fee. The general public could join with >free "read-only" accounts, with the option of sending one-off messages >for a low fee. This would literally be the best of both worlds... > > - businesses would be guaranteed the delivery of important documents > because business ISPs could charge sufficient fees to finance a > sufficiently robust infra-structure. > > - today's email system, used by Grandma to keep in touch with the > grandkids, wouldn't have to be totally perverted for the sake of > big business. What about the issue of spam in Personal email? >[..] > Many details remain to be filled in. Comments, suggestions ? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 06:21:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14328 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QAL3530436 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:21:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VTsF-0007up-6y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:21:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14294; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VTsB-0007Au-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:20:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VTs5-0007Ar-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:20:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VTqH-0007oc-QS; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VTq7-0007oO-H9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:18:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14260 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VTq3-0007A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:18:47 -0400 Received: from support.polyhedra.com ([193.195.46.202] helo=polyhedra.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VTpq-00079w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:18:34 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Tim Bedding" To: Message-ID: <9ca905e4640a9876be7fd558661437bf3efac3a8@polyhedra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Gimail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:18:02 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wanted to propose a new mail system called Gimail and ask for comments from list members. Gimail would work by each ISP having a new mail machine (gimail.isp.net say) which would contact the Gimail machine for destination ISPs. Gimail would be sent through the Gimail machine of the ISP and thus it would be simple to determine the offending ISP for unwanted mail. Someone would maintain a whitelist of well-behaved Gimail machines. ISPs in the scheme would simply reject mail from other machines. Initially, Gimail will be run in parallel to the current email system. Gradually, however, Gimail would become the mail system of choice as it would be naturally a lot more spam-free. If any ISP in the scheme went bad, its Gimail machine would simply be removed from the whitelist. Would anyone like to comment? Regards Tim The Matrix Morpheus: You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 09:16:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23687 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QDGJa21766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VWbr-0005ez-92 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23676; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWbp-0001Rg-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWbj-0001Rd-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VWbZ-0005bE-Br; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VWau-0005aZ-RR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:15:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23622 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWae-0001RB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:15:04 -0400 Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWaT-0001Qs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:14:53 -0400 Received: from [158.125.1.117] (helo=studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk ident=root) by bill.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19VWZl-0005gC-SW; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:14:09 +0100 Received: from [158.125.1.123] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19VWZl-0000E9-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:14:09 +0100 Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19VWZl-00011e-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:14:09 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org, Walter Dnes Message-ID: <1056633249.3efaf1a1cd2dc@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> From: Andrew Akehurst References: <20030623160003.25799.72124.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20030623160003.25799.72124.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.8 X-Originating-IP: 194.196.110.14 X-Spam-Score: -19.2 (-------------------) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19VWZl-0005gC-SW*2cgyofBEIBo* X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:14:10 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:14:09 +0000 (GMT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > ... 8< ... > Businesses will probably accept "business ISPs" > that guarantee delivery *TO CUSTOMERS OF THAT OR ANOTHER BUSINESS ISP*. This is a fascinating idea, I'd like to know more... Would you envisage this involving the creation of a separate network in parallel with the internet (along the lines of ANX, ENX etc. mentioned recently)? If so, how (if at all) would such a system connect with the existing internet infrastructure? Or are you suggesting that the messages would be carried over the same physical network but via a different set of servers? Perhaps with a different mail transport protocol instead of SMTP? Given the well-known problems of identifying the true sender when SMTP is used, it seems likely that a different protocol with better authentication would required to avoid the possibility of a rogue organisation sending messages at someone else's expense or claiming to originate from some address other than the true sender. If so, it would be appropriate to consider what properties such a protocol ought to have. > I am suggesting a major paradigm change. Up til now people have been > used to "THE email system". My proposal is to rename "THE email > system" to "Personal Email" and create a parallel system called "Business > Email". "Business Email" would cost extra, and *TRANSMISSION* would be > only via a per-email and per-megabyte user fee. The general public could > join with free "read-only" accounts, with the option of sending one-off > messages for a low fee. This would literally be the best of both worlds... > - businesses would be guaranteed the delivery of important documents > because business ISPs could charge sufficient fees to finance a > sufficiently robust infra-structure. > > - today's email system, used by Grandma to keep in touch with the > grandkids, wouldn't have to be totally perverted for the sake of > big business. > I'm curious to know how the new business e-mail system would interact with Joe Public. You say that the public could have free read-only accounts, which I assume would have a separate address from the personal email system. Suppose I sign up for such an account and am given an e-mail address "andrew@freebie.net" Does this mean that when I give a company an address to contact me, I would give them my "andrew@freebie.net" address? I guess that all business contacts between customer and company would ultimately be through this new business e- mail system. A few interesting questions have occurred to me, I wonder if you (or anyone else here) have any thoughts about them: At the moment, all businesses and individuals use the same shared e-mail system. When this new business e-mail system comes into being, what will persuade businesses to switch to using it? Is it the pure economic argument about differentiation of services by providing tracked, guaranteed delivery within that network? If such a network had extra features too, such as use of encryption and digital signatures to provide confidentiality and non-repudiation then I can imagine it would appear very attractive to corporate users. Perhaps I've answered this question myself, but I'd like to hear your answer. :-) Assuming that some companies do take up the new business e-mail system, there seems to be nothing that would force all other companies to do the same. What effect do you believe (in the short to medium term) this scheme would have on sending of spam over the existing e-mail system? If Mr Spammer wishes to continue sending me junk, surely he will just stay on the existing personal internet using SMTP with all of the problems that we see today. How would life for the existing e-mail recipient improve by the creation of a separate business network? > Rather than universal "must-carry", > residential ISPs would only be faced with "must-allow-client-access" to > business ISPs. This would mean not blocking SSL or SSH or VPN or > webmail or any other access *ORIGINATED BY CUSTOMERS OF THE PERSONAL > ISP* connecting to the business ISP. This does *NOT* include SMTP > delivery of email from a business ISP to a residential ISP. Given what you say here, there must be some kind of linkage between the two e- mail systems. How do you propose to identify (and distinguish between) personal ISP users and business ISP users? Would business e-mail customers be recognised by IP address, by posession of some secret information (along the lines of cryptographic authentication), or simply because they have a physically separate network which is inaccessible to outsiders? Furthermore, how do you envisage messages would travel between the two e-mail systems? Your comments above imply the use of SMTP to ultimately deliver messages to end-users on the residential network, but I assume you're being careful to avoid design decisions about what would be used to send e-mail in the opposite direction. If, as noted above, another protocol were needed on the business e-mail system (to provide the additional features lacking in SMTP) then there needs to be some gateway defined between the two e-mail systems. I would then ask what rules such a gateway would have for allowing mail in either direction. You already outline a rule stating that residential customers must be able to communicate with businesses (via some as-yet unspecified transport mechanism). Therefore: Would a business be allowed to send messages from the business e-mail network to the residential one? It's a very important feature, since how else could a business answer customer queries? Would they simply send responses to the customer's free read-only address on the business network? If so, there still needs to be some way in which that customer could conveniently read the messages sent to that address; those messages must somehow be delivered to their final recipient. I'm trying to understand the extent to which these two systems would inter- operate and where the boundaries lie. > Many details remain to be filled in. Comments, suggestions ? I think it's a very novel suggestion, but there's a lot more I'd like to know about it. Sorry if any of my questions seems a little obvious, I'm just checking that I've understood your idea correctly. Regards Andrew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 09:28:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23968 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QDSAj25228 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VWnK-0006Yp-8z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23951; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWnI-0001VN-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWnC-0001VK-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VWnB-0006ST-NW; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VWn2-0006S7-JE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:27:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23944 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWn0-0001V4-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:27:50 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VWmq-0001Uu-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:27:40 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2486010; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:27:15 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:19:49 -0400 The longer I know Barry, the less I think he's a paranoid curmudgeon and the more I think he's just remarkably ahead of the curve. (Or in other words, he's going to fall off the cliff first.) http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1020963.html >A new variant of the Sobig virus started spreading on Wednesday, >raising the specter that spammers will have a host of new PCs to use >as platforms for sending bulk e-mail. > >Initial analysis by antivirus companies indicated that the >mass-mailing computer worm, called Sobig.E, doesn't have a malicious >payload. However, e-mail service provider MessageLabs believes >spammers will use the virus's mail program on victims' computers to >send anonymous messages. > >"This is almost certainly being precipitated by a spammer that is >trying to create more open relays to send spam," said Mark Sunner, >chief technology officer for the U.K.-based company. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 11:16:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01189 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QFGNc03605 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VYU2-0000w4-Tn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01161; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYU1-0002Wg-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYTw-0002Wd-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VYTi-0000tq-1a; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VYTH-0000rc-9N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:15:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01102 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYT1-0002Vb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:15:19 -0400 Received: from 000-234-540.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.155.99] helo=68.27.155.99) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYSg-0002UZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:15:00 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626110949.00b4e8e0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id LAA01132 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:09:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just ran across a new article from News.com=20 (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1021166.html) discussing the difference=20 between Microsoft's actions and words on spam. ---snip--- Microsoft urged to fry its own spam By Paul Festa Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 26, 2003, 4:00 AM PT http://news.com.com/2100-1032-1021166.html Microsoft recently launched a high-profile campaign against spammers, but= =20 some critics say the company should be more introspective if it is seriou= s=20 about reducing the scourge of unwanted e-mail. The software maker and some of its competitors that provide Internet=20 service and Web-based e-mail are outdoing one another with highly=20 publicized antispam campaigns. These have ranged from lawsuits to=20 technology and policy initiatives. In the most recent example, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates sent a letter=20 Tuesday to customers in which he explained some steps his company is taki= ng=20 to reduce spam. The letter came a day after The Wall Street Journal=20 published an antispam column penned by Gates. But some companies and organizations working to curb spam accuse Microsof= t=20 of grandstanding, saying that the Redmond, Wash., company has demonstrate= d=20 a preference for splashy press events over difficult technology fixes or=20 product sacrifices. These critics have seized on the company's own=20 statements that it is focusing on reducing the amount of spam its users=20 receive, rather than the spam its users and servers send. "Microsoft is behind the times," said Laura Atkins, president of the=20 SpamCon Foundation. "In general it's nice to see them finally catching up= =20 with everyone else--and they are working hard to rein in abuse--but they=20 have to work a lot harder," Atkins said."Microsoft has its own spam probl= em." Microsoft, however, rejects those contentions, citing recent projects and= =20 the long-term nature of any effective solution. "Spam is a central issue for our customers and we are taking a multifacet= ed=20 approach to address the problem," a Microsoft representative said. "We di= d=20 not get here overnight. It will take time to see the impact of the effort= s=20 we are making across technology, legislation, enforcement and self-regula= tion." In February, Microsoft announced a series of lawsuits against spammers. I= n=20 March it imposed a 100-message cap on users of its free Hotmail e-mail=20 service (the restriction does not apply to paid Hotmail accounts). In May= ,=20 Microsoft unveiled more antispam features for Hotmail and its MSN online=20 service and submitted to the U.S. Senate written testimony by Gates urgin= g=20 legal spam restrictions. And last week the company called an internationa= l=20 press conference to publicize more suits against spammers. Critics: Spam traced to Microsoft servers But even such a busy antispam schedule has failed to convince Microsoft's= =20 critics that it is doing enough to help stem the spam tide. Deficiencies in Microsoft's spam behavior range across a number of its=20 divisions that offer e-mail services, according to Atkins and others. The= se=20 include the company's small-business-oriented bCentral portal; MSN, which= =20 has its own e-mail service; and Hotmail, a separate, Web-based e-mail=20 service that uses many of the same systems as MSN but operates under=20 different rules. Perhaps the loudest hew and cry against Microsoft emanates from some=20 network administrators tracking the spam problem, who claim that a sizabl= e=20 chunk of the spam now clogging the Internet's arteries emanates from=20 Microsoft's own servers. These spam watchers complain that while Microsoft has implemented badly=20 needed controls on Hotmail, such as technology designed to identify=20 software robots and prevent them from registering for accounts, Microsoft= =20 has left loopholes large enough to run rivers of spam through the related= =20 MSN e-mail service. "Hotmail has the combination of daily limits and having to prove you're=20 human, which makes it not useful for sending spam," said John Levine,=20 author of several computer technology books and a board member of the=20 Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (CAUCE). "MSN has neither= =20 of those, so we're seeing a lot of spam." MSN e-mail is available for a free two-month trial. As a result, Levine=20 said, someone could use a purloined credit card number to open the accoun= t,=20 send torrents of spam, and then cancel the account before the credit card= =20 is charged and subsequently determined to be stolen. That process could b= e=20 repeated several times a day by a single person, he said. Levine and others further isolate the MSN spam problem to a protocol that= =20 Microsoft uses to integrate its various e-mail services and e-mail=20 management applications, including Outlook. Called WebDAV, the protocol=20 lets people write their own interfaces to an e-mail system, and it is=20 through this protocol that Levine believes spammers are jacking up MSN's=20 spam output. Methods of using WebDAV to send e-mail through Hotmail's servers--but=20 without going through the Web site or Outlook--are well documented online. "With the right tools, a smart network engineer would be able to see that= =20 almost all of the e-mail coming from the Hotmail/MSN servers that are use= d=20 for WebDAV is spam," wrote one spam expert who requested anonymity. "We=20 have seen direct evidence of this." Worse, WebDAV critics say, the protocol makes it easy for spammers to alt= er=20 their return addresses and other header information--a chronic headache f= or=20 network administrators trying to identify spam and its origins. "If you have a Hotmail or MSN account, when you set up your account in=20 Outlook Express, you can set it up with any return address you want, and=20 the Hotmail/MSN mail servers cheerfully send mail with any old return=20 address you want," Levine said. "Hence the problem." Microsoft: We're working on it However, MSN has its own outbound e-mail limit, said Larry Grothaus, MSN'= s=20 lead product manager, declining to disclose any details. He also contende= d=20 that the credit card registration safeguarded MSN e-mail against=20 unauthenticated abuse, and that the credit card system prevented serial=20 registrations under the same card. "We agree that it's a very large issue for the entire industry, so we're=20 doing what we can on both the incoming and outgoing basis to help=20 customers," Grothaus said. While not disputing the technical details of=20 critics' WebDAV complaints, he called the notion that most of MSN's=20 outbound DAV e-mail was spam "absolutely incorrect...a very far stretch." The degree to which Microsoft is working on the outbound spam issue remai= ns=20 a matter of debate. In a May 29 interview published on the company's Web=20 site, the general manager of Microsoft's antispam technology and strategy= =20 group, Ryan Hamlin, said the company had prioritized incoming spam over=20 outbound spam. "Outbound is something we're looking at," Hamlin said. "We've had=20 conversations both in Hotmail and MSN, and I would say that it's not=20 something that probably in the next couple of months you'll see us be sup= er=20 aggressive about, because we feel like solving the inbound problem is a=20 much greater issue right now than solving the outbound problem." The amount of incoming Hotmail spam dwarfed the amount of outbound Hotmai= l=20 spam by about 10-to-1, Hamlin said. "So we're going after the big fish first and solving the inbound problem=20 and then absolutely we'll turn and start to address the outbound issue," = he=20 said. That philosophy doesn't sit well with the SpamCon Foundation, which accus= es=20 Microsoft of failing to regulate spam sent by its own customers. "BCentral.com sends a lot of mail that is not necessarily solicited, and=20 often they continue to send it even after you've told them to stop," Atki= ns=20 said. "The problem is that bCentral has a number of customers who send ma= il=20 through them, but Microsoft doesn't police them at all. They don't take=20 action against their customers." Microsoft-owned bCentral sells software and services such as e-mail to=20 small businesses. A representative declined to comment on the issue of sp= am=20 from the service. While network administrators complain about the volume of spam originatin= g=20 with Microsoft servers, at least one e-mail provider sounded a sympatheti= c=20 note. "We continually have to improve what we are doing on our side as well,"=20 said Josh Mailman, vice president of marketing for Everyone.net, which=20 hosts free sponsored mail for 35,000 domains. "People will try to exploit free Web mail even to the extent of hiring=20 people to go through human interface test--which we all have--and then se= nd=20 spam out one by one. Think of spam sweat shops," Mailman said. "Providers= =20 like Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL and us have to continually improve and be vigila= nt=20 to the threat and work to keep e-mail clean." Copyright =A91995-2003 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. ---snip---=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 11:17:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01284 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QFH8S04332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VYUl-00017n-VX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01241; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYUl-0002XU-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYUf-0002XR-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VYUf-00012D-Ax; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VYUA-0000wa-95 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01168 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYU9-0002Wj-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:29 -0400 Received: from 000-234-540.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.155.99] helo=68.27.155.99) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VYTw-0002Wb-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:16:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:13:32 -0400 Well, this raises an interesting issue that I mentioned before - if a virus takes over someone's email client, lets say Outlook, and starts sending spam from that person's account which is legit, there isn't much we can do. Someone else suggested that imposing a rate limit and notifing the customer in case the limit is reached, would be a possible solution. At 09:19 AM 6/26/2003 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: >The longer I know Barry, the less I think he's a paranoid curmudgeon and >the more I think he's just remarkably ahead of the curve. (Or in other >words, he's going to fall off the cliff first.) > >http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1020963.html >>A new variant of the Sobig virus started spreading on Wednesday, raising >>the specter that spammers will have a host of new PCs to use as platforms >>for sending bulk e-mail. >> >>Initial analysis by antivirus companies indicated that the mass-mailing >>computer worm, called Sobig.E, doesn't have a malicious payload. However, >>e-mail service provider MessageLabs believes spammers will use the >>virus's mail program on victims' computers to send anonymous messages. >> >>"This is almost certainly being precipitated by a spammer that is trying >>to create more open relays to send spam," said Mark Sunner, chief >>technology officer for the U.K.-based company. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 12:23:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07134 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QGMeg21481 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VZWC-0005aO-EJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07097; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZWA-0003SP-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZW5-0003SM-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VZVZ-0005YP-F1; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VZVS-0005Y4-2A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:21:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07071 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZVB-0003Rs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:21:37 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZV0-0003RQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:21:26 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5QGK2t5011765 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:20:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306261620.h5QGK2t5011765@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626110949.00b4e8e0@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:20:02 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich >... > (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1021166.html) discussing the difference > between Microsoft's actions and words on spam. > ... > "BCentral.com sends a lot of mail that is not necessarily solicited, and > often they continue to send it even after you've told them to stop," Atkins > said. "The problem is that bCentral has a number of customers who send mail > through them, but Microsoft doesn't police them at all. They don't take > action against their customers." "Not necessarily solicited" is a mealymouthed way of stating the truth that Microsoft's Bcentral.com is an unregenerate spam haus. I've plenty of my own evidence to prove that charge. You can see some of other people's evidence in http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Bcentral+group%3A*.sightings > ... > "People will try to exploit free Web mail even to the extent of hiring > people to go through human interface test ..." I've been wondering for a long time when someone might say that in public. About "forgery," free mail providers (including Everyone.net), and related subjects--I recently I'd grown sloppy in keeping track of their domain names as envelope senders in the spam in my traps and that I'd been lazy when I last counted them. Of the 34,740 spam in my 39 day rolling log that were not relay probes, 15,025 or 43% had sender domains from among the 784 domains listed in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 12:46:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08434 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QGkAP26049 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VZsw-0006m3-A3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08400; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZsu-0003iQ-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZso-0003iN-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VZsm-0006i1-Qg; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VZs9-0006gk-FQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:45:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08343 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZs7-0003hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:45:19 -0400 Received: from 000-234-540.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.155.99] helo=68.27.155.99) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VZrt-0003hU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:45:07 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124413.00bb7d60@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:44:14 -0400 At 10:20 AM 6/26/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > >... > > (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1021166.html) discussing the difference > > between Microsoft's actions and words on spam. > > > ... > > "People will try to exploit free Web mail even to the extent of hiring > > people to go through human interface test ..." > >I've been wondering for a long time when someone might say that in public. >[..] I was wondering about that as well. Would hiring people for go through the human interface test increases the costs for spammers? Does it matter since the cost is so small anyway? What about in a C/R system where a human interface test is used, would spammers actually go ahead and hire people to pass the test from each bounced message? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 12:59:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09230 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QGxEO28419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Va5a-0007OI-De for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09203; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Va5Y-0003tF-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Va5S-0003tC-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Va5N-0007M1-GW; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Va4V-0007LU-9S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:58:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09131 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Va4T-0003s4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:58:05 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Va4H-0003rr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:57:53 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5QGvlZx019967 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:57:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124043.00bb4ea0@std5.imagineis.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:57:47 -0600 (MDT) > From: Yakov Shafranovich > ... > I was wondering about that as well. Would hiring people for go through the > human interface test increases the costs for spammers? Does it matter since > the cost is so small anyway? What about in a C/R system where a human > interface test is used, would spammers actually go ahead and hire people to > pass the test from each bounced message? Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces or receives a complaint and terminates it. Free providers often impose delays of more than 10 seconds for account creation. That can be handled by giving your $10/hour employees big monitors and have them run several windows simultaneously to overlap with the delays. Pay them by the account created or challenge answered to keep them busy. Use software to automate most of the process, including counting and checking the work. Don't worry about the U.S. labor laws about piece work, since you're probably breaking lots of other laws. I wonder how much of the flood of "work at home" spam today involves free mail account creation jobs? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 13:32:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10320 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QHTHS04853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VaYf-0001GC-F3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10252; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VaYd-00045B-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VaYX-000458-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VaYP-0001EJ-AJ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VaXw-0001Du-Ps for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:28:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10248 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VaXu-000450-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:28:30 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VaXk-00044p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:28:20 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5QHRbch005913; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:27:37 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D229A@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Vernon Schryver'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:27:36 -0700 I think that we have to be realistic about the cost/benefit issue here. Yes it is possible for a spammer to hire people to sign up for these schemes. However to do so requires capital which has an effect on the starting out spam senders. A spam sender that tries to do this in bulk is going to start to hit limits on the number of addresses a given IP address can sign up for at a time. It strikes me that it might be a good scheme to allow the spam senders to register large numbers of domains but mark them as being suspect spamhaus addresses. Then monitor the emails being sent out with spam filters and chop the account. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:58 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > I was wondering about that as well. Would hiring people for > go through the > > human interface test increases the costs for spammers? Does > it matter since > > the cost is so small anyway? What about in a C/R system > where a human > > interface test is used, would spammers actually go ahead > and hire people to > > pass the test from each bounced message? > > Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge > answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. > That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the > challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds > low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of > messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces > or receives a complaint and terminates it. > > Free providers often impose delays of more than 10 seconds for > account creation. That can be handled by giving your $10/hour > employees big monitors and have them run several windows > simultaneously > to overlap with the delays. Pay them by the account created or > challenge answered to keep them busy. Use software to automate > most of the process, including counting and checking the work. > Don't worry about the U.S. labor laws about piece work, since > you're probably breaking lots of other laws. > > I wonder how much of the flood of "work at home" spam today involves > free mail account creation jobs? > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:20:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12757 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PFiBp19252 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCRL-0004zl-Av for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16971; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCQL-0004gv-Hu; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:43:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VBzM-0006YL-EM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:15:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01574 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UxhF-0000Mw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:59:33 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Uxh4-0000Mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:59:22 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2479633 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:39:56 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Textbook example Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:11:07 -0400 At 2:14 AM -0500 6/24/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >Now, it IS true I suppose that the spammer could have used a >non-hyperlinked URL >and asked the recipient to copy-and-paste it, but they're still probably going All modern email systems automatically link anything that looks like a URL, whether or not the email is in HTML format. No cut and paste required. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:21:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12903 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PFjdq23253 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCSl-00060f-Vd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17243; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCSE-0005Zm-75; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VBzM-0006YL-Mv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:15:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01782 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UxD2-00007s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:28:20 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UxBN-00006Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:26:37 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5OMV9o1017573; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:31:09 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29390; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:31:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16120.53549.345766.701104@world.std.com> To: gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:31:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, there are actually specific weaknesses in the memory and protection model of windows operating systems which allow programs run by ordinary users without privileges to infect the machine with viruses. Plus or minus the odd serious bug or misconfiguration operating systems such as unix, linux, VMS, MVS, TOPS-20 (going back 20+ years), etc are more or less immune to such problems. This is because you generally have to first obtain super-user privilege to modify system software. This is really viruses 101. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:22:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12937 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5Q1iB502636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:44:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLo3-0000gR-O4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:44:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19407; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLo0-00046E-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:44:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLnu-00046B-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:44:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLns-0000bj-Ii; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:44:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VLmx-0000Ri-9x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:43:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18601 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLcy-0003sU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:32:44 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VLcn-0003qt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:32:33 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2484530; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:30:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030625205450.00b41bb0@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030625205450.00b41bb0@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Weird spam Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:29:30 -0400 At 8:54 PM -0400 6/25/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >I received a very strange spam message, quoted below. Does anyone >know what these kind of messages accomplish? Same as hoaxes and graffiti. The knowledge of knowing that your message is being seen by thousands of people. That one's been around for a while. ALong with the guy looking for a time machine and a few others. One more reason why the definition of "spam" should not include the word "commercial". -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:23:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12998 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:23:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PFnCb29229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:49:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCWF-0007ac-VC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:49:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17869; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCVF-00070u-LI; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:48:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VC0K-0008Af-GF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:16:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12363 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UvbO-0007Yg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:45:22 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UvbD-0007YG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:45:11 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip100-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.100]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 43A4736952 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:12:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:07:26 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Point of information... Message-ID: <20030624170726.A2178@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030619221149.00b67008@std5.imagineis.com> <200306192120.RAA16724@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030620175628.00b92600@std5.imagineis.com> <16115.39389.986920.976051@world.std.com> <20030621234539.A6723@m433> <16117.61823.584617.395250@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <16117.61823.584617.395250@world.std.com>; from bzs@world.std.com on Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:12:15PM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:07:26 -0400 On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:12:15PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote > > An RFC means nothing if it isn't enforced. You almost need an > > "internet driver's licence" or a "Killer-V" to get the problems off > > the net. > > Wait a minute, there have been over 3000 RFC's issued. > > Do you mean to tell us they all mean nothing? Most of them are followed. However, some aren't. Netscape started the HTML-email garbage, and MS followed. > Hmm, why are we here? What do you imagine the product of this group > likely to be? One or more RFCs that are hopefully followed/enforced. That qualification is the sticking point. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:24:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13090 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PFiNJ19806 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCRa-00058r-Vn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16979; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCQU-0004kf-My; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:43:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VBzM-0006YL-CV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:15:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02645 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UzYt-0001QT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:59:03 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85] helo=rwcrmhc12.attbi.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UzYi-0001QC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:58:52 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003062501575601400nbbkse>; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:57:57 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Introduction and another idea Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <200306222347.h5MNleLV018352@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <7092C17F-A6B0-11D7-B308-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:57:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 07:47 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> Indeed. If users are unhappy with text/plain (and want bold, italics, >> etc., reflowing paragraphs and so on), then we've already got a >> non-HTML solution: text/enriched, rfc1896. > > What common MUA's can generate or even display RFC 1896 rich text? Eudora. > That is realistic, but we could also hope to get software producers > to turn off HTML by default, or at least until the user asks for > some formatting. Like Apple Mail does, for example. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:25:26 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13135 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PNRBp04699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJfT-0001Di-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11187; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJfR-0002AS-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJfL-0002AN-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJfJ-00017I-0t; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VJeN-00013s-0l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:26:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11038 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJc3-00028A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:23:39 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com ([62.190.174.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VJbs-00027L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:23:28 -0400 Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (external)) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:22:07 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D228C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> <200306252111.h5PLBJ3L001781@calcite.rhyolite.com> <16122.10456.884901.716852@world.std.com> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: <16122.10456.884901.716852@world.std.com> (Barry Shein's message of "Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:57:28 -0400") Message-ID: <84ptl1pwuw.fsf_-_@cenderis.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Asrg] Re: Viruses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:21:11 +0100 Barry Shein writes: [...] > I maintain that the primary problem with spam right now is caused by > the hijacking of systems (demonstrably) by the hundreds (probably much > more) to spew spam. Is there evidence to support this? (My apologies if it's already been quoted.) > I further maintain that without these hijacked systems spammers would > be ineffective, a relatively minor nuisance. > > There are good, structural reasons why this is the case: > > a) Spamming does not provide the sort of margin needed to purchase and > maintain the equipment they seem to rely on. Therefore, they must > steal it. > > b) Even if they could acquire such equipment, and concomitant > bandwidth, it would of necessity be located in a relatively static > location (e.g., ip addresses), and, so, relatively easy to just block. I must admit, my gut feeling suggests that these two points ought to be true. And yet I suspect they aren't: I suspect spamming is cheap enough, and that there's just enough demand, that some spammers can indeed make a profit relatively legitimately. [...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:28:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13398 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OCgMk01851 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:42:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Un7u-0000Tm-Ok for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:42:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13917; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Un7t-0002dg-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:42:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Un7n-0002dd-00; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:42:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Un7Y-0000Rr-Sf; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Un61-0000Ql-Pj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:41:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13872 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Un60-0002d7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:40:24 -0400 Received: from mail4.ssmb.com ([199.67.139.129] helo=imbaspam-ny04.iplex.ssmb.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Un5p-0002cP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:40:13 -0400 Received: from imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com [162.124.186.138]) by imbaspam-ny04.iplex.ssmb.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSMB_EXT/evision: 1.20 $) with ESMTP id h5OCdHNL007059; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net [169.186.205.199]) by imbarc-ny01.ny.ssmb.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/SSMB_QQQ_IN/1.1) with ESMTP id h5OCd430016687; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchuk13.eu.ssmb.com (imceu.eu.ssmb.com [169.186.152.113]) by mailhub-dc2.eur.nsroot.net (8.9.3-GEMSp2/8.9.3/SSMB-HUB) with ESMTP id NAA11203; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:39:01 +0100 (BST) Received: by imceu.eu.ssmb.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:39:00 +0100 Message-ID: <80AD1C20BCECD6118FD800508BCF7EDA72DA5D@exchuk19.eu.ssmb.com> From: "Clayton, Nik [IT]" To: "'jm@jmason.org'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Dr. Jeffrey Race'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] HTML-burdened E-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:38:52 +0100 > > Unauthenticated executable content of any kind has no place in email. There > > is no cause to send unsolicited and unauthenticated Java, Active-X or > > Javascript. The tag referencing an external object is causing a > > programmed action I think it should be blocked by default as well. > > > > HTML worked and works just fine without external references or executable > > content. > > +1, I agree strongly. > > BTW it's even more complex now, since many legit mail-sending operations > consider "web bugs" (1x1 pixel external IMGs with an identifying tag) > to be good practice in measuring mail views. :( I know of at least one large financial organisation that refuses to accept messages containing web bugs. If a few more large groups hopped on the bandwagon... N -- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -- The 75 column-ometer Global Messaging, A: Top posting 120 Cheapside, x83331 Q: What's the most annoying e-mail habit? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:30:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13509 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PFjd723246 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCSl-00060u-Ss for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17244; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCSB-0005R3-5b; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VByq-00089b-Qi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:14:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05122 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:54:50 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19V1Mw-0001qf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:54:50 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19V1Ml-0001qa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:54:39 -0400 Received: (cpmta 12344 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 20:54:14 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 24 Jun 2003 20:54:14 -0700 X-Sent: 25 Jun 2003 03:54:14 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:54:13 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:21:36 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses To: Barry Shein , gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16120.53549.345766.701104@world.std.com> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:21:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >No, there are actually specific weaknesses in the memory and >protection model of windows operating systems which allow programs run >by ordinary users without privileges to infect the machine with >viruses. Viruses and worms can easily enough propagate while operating without privileges. The fact is that Sun, Linux, Mac, VMS, and other OSes (and apps running under those) also can be and have been subject to viruses too. The main reason they're not infected more often is because Windows and its apps are more widely found, and thus a more appealing target for virus authors. >Plus or minus the odd serious bug or misconfiguration operating >systems such as unix, linux, VMS, MVS, TOPS-20 (going back 20+ years), >etc are more or less immune to such problems. I guess you can claim that if you dismiss any vulnerability as an "odd serious bug". OS/MVT had plenty of strong memory and protection features, but (like most ANY operating system) there were plenty of holes and vulnerabilities, too. All systems have them; most nontrivial applications do, too. > This is because you generally have to first obtain super-user privilege to modify system software. But you don't have to "modify system software" to become infected with a worm, virus, or trojan. >This is really viruses 101. The problem (here on THIS list at least) isn't viruses, it's the ability to install malicious programs that can aid and abet spammers. That does NOT require system root rights. One of the things that's so appealing about the sender/recipient pair permissions lists is that the SAME mechanism works against BOTH spam AND viruses/worms/trojans. And it doesn't require a special theoretical high-security operating system to achieve that. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:43:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14219 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QIhJf01218 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VbiJ-0000JZ-Tk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14207; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VbiH-0004mp-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VbiB-0004ml-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vbi1-0000AX-Bs; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VbhM-0000A2-Hm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:42:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14147 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vbh4-0004li-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:42:02 -0400 Received: from mail13.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.213] helo=mail.speakeasy.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vbgu-0004kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:41:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 23936 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 18:40:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO speakeasy.org) ([66.92.168.196]) (envelope-sender ) by mail13.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 26 Jun 2003 18:40:14 -0000 From: Dave Aronson To: Vernon Schryver User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124043.00bb4ea0@std5.imagineis.com> <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> Cc: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306261443.16139.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: > Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge > answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. > That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the > challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds > low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of > messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces > or receives a complaint and terminates it. Does anybody have any actual numbers on how good a return spammers get on their spam, in terms of, say, cents per thousand spams? I suspect this will be very hard to measure for spam that works indirectly (like getting people to go to a URL that does not have an embedded tracking number), and vastly different per category, but there may be SOME hard data out there.... > Free providers often impose delays of more than 10 seconds for > account creation. Heck, that much delay can be imposed by normal data processing, web congestion, etc.... > That can be handled by giving your $10/hour > employees big monitors and have them run several windows > simultaneously to overlap with the delays. I don't think it need even require large monitors and manual task switching. It should be relatively simple (i.e., at most a month's programming) to automate everything but the image interpretation. If it presents a steady stream of images to a human, it could get the time each down to maybe two or three seconds. Within a minute, I've thought of a whole architecture for such a system, with modular screen parsing for different providers, and configgable so you can keep up with changes in their screens. Of course I'll leave it as an exercise for the lurking spammers and spam-symps, but I can easily imagine someone writing this sucker and selling it to spammers. -- David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer in the Washington DC area See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume and other information. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 14:44:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14266 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5PFec114871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:40:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCNx-0003rl-Lh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:40:37 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16592; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VCIt-0001TI-4U; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:35:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VBx4-00089b-CD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:12:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06307 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19V7YT-0003CI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:31:09 -0400 Received: from bay2-f137.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.137] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19V7YI-0003CA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:30:58 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:30:05 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:30:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2003 10:30:05.0005 (UTC) FILETIME=[BDFF77D0:01C33B04] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:30:04 -0200 At 6/25/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Mon, Jun 23, 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote >>At 6/23/03, Walter Dnes wrote: >> > Many details remain to be filled in. Comments, suggestions ? >> >>1. There are two aspects of depending on email as a business. One is >>sending. But for most businesses receiving is even more important. >>And that's receiving from end users. How do you do that without >>involving spam? > > A business can "receive" via a webform. As a matter of fact, a >customer can keep track of their order via webpages. Businesses can >get around spam by using webforms for incoming requests. Look at the Automotive industry, for some years they have had closed large scale "extranets" in form of ANX, ENX and JNX. Internet-like networks with IPSec encryption as standard and trusts between them. In US it seems that also Health Care operators have bought access from ANX. Set up mail to traverse this net and you can follow the traffic in the operator logs, who connected to who for smtp. Disconnect this mail from Internet and you have no spam this way. Then do as Walter says, use web forms for Internet contacts. When the mobile becomes a Palm or CE, this is no longer a real problem. Unfortunately the proposed global cooperation, Global Automotive Network Exchange (GNX) have yet to materialize. But when the cost of security soars and the Automotive industry gets away from their present ownership attitude, getting the large ISP's to take over and operate it 100% commercially, under same conditions as the Internet, we'll see the problem decrease for these commercial operations. Then also other players will connect, as governmental bodies, creating a parallel Internet and mail system, leaving small scale operations and personal mail left in the remaining spam soup. >>2. While this creates a desirable service for businesses, and it >>potentially avoids the danger of negative legislation in the personal >>email space, does it have any attributes that directly help eliminate >>spam in the personal email space? > > The mere fact that it's "personal email", rather than a business >facility will allow end-users to use more effective filters, even though >they risk more false positives. Possible, since this leaves less infrastructure impact, since people upgrade clients once or twice every year, though a combination of Milter type of filters for volume and client for whitelisting and local blocking is preferred. And if as accurate info in the block lists is used, false positives is negliable. Haven't had a false positive since my last correction of my "Earnest" filter in May. If hunting the right data, we can reduce false positives to a level where it isn't a problem. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 15:04:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15368 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJ4CZ10361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vc2W-0002h2-Sm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15289; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vc2T-0004ww-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vc2O-0004wt-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vc2L-0002Xy-F2; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vc1r-0002XZ-Uz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:03:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15241 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vc1p-0004wo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:03:29 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vc1c-0004wW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:03:17 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626150208.00b380c0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:02:09 -0400 At 10:57 AM 6/26/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: Yakov Shafranovich > > > ... > > I was wondering about that as well. Would hiring people for go through the > > human interface test increases the costs for spammers? Does it matter > since > > the cost is so small anyway? What about in a C/R system where a human > > interface test is used, would spammers actually go ahead and hire > people to > > pass the test from each bounced message? > >Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge >answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. >That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the >challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds >low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of >messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces >or receives a complaint and terminates it. >[..] Even if every single message has to be manually verified or sent by a human, how much would it cost anyway to hire people to do so? It seems that the advantage that spam enjoys is due to low cost of the transmission medium. In the postal system junk mail is restricted not by the fact that its sent by humans or machines, but rather by the cost of the postage itself and various laws covering illegal mail scams. Thus, in the email world it would seem that an economic solution that imposes postage costs would seem like a good solution but then again the real world does not correspond directly to the Net world. On the other hand snail mail recipients cannot have an automated system reject junk mail, unlike email users. Thus this brings us back again to consent-based communications. Users and/or their providers define filtering rules under which email is rejected or put into the bulk folder. For the most paranoid, all email is rejected unless the receiver is known, for others filtering, C/R, HTML blocking, etc. systems can be used. Once the receiver has given his consent to the sender, all email will flow freely. Consent can either be given by being put on a whitelist - then issues of forged sender must be resolved. Other ways to give consent is cryptographic tokens or passwords. Just some thoughts. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 15:14:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16493 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJEAD15399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcCA-00040I-M0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16438; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcC9-00051Q-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcC3-00051N-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcC1-0003wl-LA; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcBc-0003wF-Iz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:13:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16373 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcBb-00050y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:13:35 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcBO-00050o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:13:23 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626151205.00bb62b0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Dave Aronson From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200306261443.16139.dja2003@hotpop.com> References: <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124043.00bb4ea0@std5.imagineis.com> <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:12:56 -0400 At 02:43 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Dave Aronson wrote: >Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge > > answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. > > That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the > > challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds > > low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of > > messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces > > or receives a complaint and terminates it. > >Does anybody have any actual numbers on how good a return spammers get on >their spam, in terms of, say, cents per thousand spams? I suspect this >will be very hard to measure for spam that works indirectly (like >getting people to go to a URL that does not have an embedded tracking >number), and vastly different per category, but there may be SOME hard >data out there.... [..] There was a news article a while back somewhere about the Iraq playing cards that were made by some company. It had some financial figures. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 15:20:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16950 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJKQt17828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcIE-0004dT-3w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16923; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcIC-00055b-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcHx-00055S-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcHp-0004MR-Qw; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcHh-0004Lk-4u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:19:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16901 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcHQ-00054y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:19:37 -0400 Received: from mxsmta03.inithost.com ([209.235.30.105] helo=mxsmta03.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcHG-00053j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:19:26 -0400 Received: from garbagedump.com ([24.128.102.183]) by mxsmta03.dellhost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030626191857.VAQO28645.mxsmta03.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:18:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB46B4.50103@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a; MultiZilla v1.4.0.4A) Gecko/20030612 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: Dave Aronson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders References: <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124043.00bb4ea0@std5.imagineis.com> <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626151205.00bb62b0@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626151205.00bb62b0@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:17:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I heard the number as 1% conversion rate: for every 100 messages sent, 99 will reject it and 1 will buy it! Chuck Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 02:43 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Dave Aronson wrote: > >> Vernon Schryver wrote: >> >> > Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge >> > answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. >> > That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the >> > challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds >> > low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of >> > messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces >> > or receives a complaint and terminates it. >> >> Does anybody have any actual numbers on how good a return spammers >> get on >> their spam, in terms of, say, cents per thousand spams? I suspect this >> will be very hard to measure for spam that works indirectly (like >> getting people to go to a URL that does not have an embedded tracking >> number), and vastly different per category, but there may be SOME hard >> data out there.... > > [..] > > There was a news article a while back somewhere about the Iraq playing > cards that were made by some company. It had some financial figures. > > Yakov > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 15:37:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17868 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJaec24792 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:36:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcXw-0006Rn-67 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:36:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17846; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcXJ-0006Jd-NN; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcTg-00066J-HO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:32:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17571 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcSR-0005DZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:30:59 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcSG-0005Bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:30:49 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AND26844; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJM00782; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Barry Shein'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Viruses Message-ID: <004801c33c19$20e62af0$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-reply-to: <16122.11883.895518.586214@world.std.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:28:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barry Shein wrote: > For example, is it a FEATURE of all mentioned windows OS's=20 > that any non-privileged program can add new .EXE files to=20 > the system directory and modify the registry such that=20 > those newly added programs autostart on boot? > Or is it a BUG which was exploited? The reality is that it is both Feature and Bug. The difference depends on perspective and timing not on technical details... What was once a feature would be seen as a bug if designed today. Times have changed. "Back then", many would have claimed that making software easy to install on Windows machines was appropriate. End users had trouble dealing with passwords, didn't understand security constraints, etc. and, Windows machines weren't "mission critical" -- they were just desktop front-ends to other more well protected systems. But, those times have changed. What hasn't changed very much is Windows' idea of security. It is the same with email protocols. I built my first email system in 1980 and shipped my first product containing email (DEC's ALL-IN-1) in 1981. (It had 54% market share for commercial Office Automation back in the 80's). I also participated in numerous international standards efforts related to email. However, I don't think I can remember a single instance during the 80's when spam was seriously discussed as something that should be addressed in email protocol design. It has always been with us, however, people trusted that folk would use the network well and that peer pressure could get people to stop sending inappropriate mail. This na=EFve and hopeful view of the world was shattered during the 90's... What we've got now is a legacy problem. There are thousands of software applications that rely on the virtually non-existent security in Windows to do what they need to do and we've got thousands of mail packages that rely on old protocols designed for a different era. It isn't useful at this point to tag things as "bugs" or "features." What we need to do is define what the correct behavior should be "in these times" and then deal with all the issues related to bringing all the old systems up to date. If Microsoft is to be faulted, it isn't for making the original design decisions in Windows. They should be faulted for not having addressed the issue of re-design more aggressively as the world changed around them. > I really believe we are nearing the actual=20 > heart of the spam problem. Yes, the "heart" of the problem is that the people who designed the systems being exploited by spammers today had a very different worldview than they would have if they were designing the same systems today. The people who designed the systems in use today didn't anticipate fully how those systems would be used. These systems were designed during a "kinder and gentler" time. The world is a different place today. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 15:57:25 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18717 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJuvP31940 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:56:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VcrZ-0008J5-HI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:56:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18680; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vcob-0005OP-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:53:53 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VcoV-0005OM-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:53:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vcnk-0007vG-VL; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vcn0-0007rF-An for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:52:14 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18502 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5QJlqSx029110 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:47:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306261947.h5QJlqSx029110@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders References: <200306261443.16139.dja2003@hotpop.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:47:52 -0600 (MDT) > From: Dave Aronson > ... > Does anybody have any actual numbers on how good a return spammers get on > their spam, in terms of, say, cents per thousand spams? I suspect this > will be very hard to measure for spam that works indirectly (like > getting people to go to a URL that does not have an embedded tracking > number), and vastly different per category, but there may be SOME hard > data out there.... I suspect anyone who claims to be able to answer that question is either a spammer and so a pathological, unbelievable lier, or a poseur of a lier. The amount of lawbreaking in spam ensures that those who really and actually make a profit will keep quiet. Occassionally there are hints of believable numbers, such as the recent excitement about the money made by selling "Iraq playing cards." See http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1443978,00.html and http://www.iht.com/articles/99019.htm However, such notes are so rare that they only show how little is known. It's worth distinguishing between the senders of bulk email who charge for that service and those who hope to get rich selling whatever. > > Free providers often impose delays of more than 10 seconds for > > account creation. > > Heck, that much delay can be imposed by normal data processing, web > congestion, etc.... That's most of what I meant. > ... > for different providers, and configgable so you can keep up with changes > in their screens. Of course I'll leave it as an exercise for the > lurking spammers and spam-symps, but I can easily imagine someone > writing this sucker and selling it to spammers. Or again, selling it to "home workers" via spam. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 15:59:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18840 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJwXg00780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vct7-0000CT-6X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18784; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vcsc-0008Ky-5V; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vcro-0008Jk-3z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:57:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18682 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vcpx-0005Or-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:55:17 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vcpn-0005Oc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:55:07 -0400 Received: (cpmta 14137 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 12:54:37 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 12:54:37 -0700 X-Sent: 26 Jun 2003 19:54:37 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:53:51 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:21:19 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Bug, or Feature? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:21:19 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > For example, is it a FEATURE of all mentioned windows OS's that any non-privileged program can add new .EXE files to the system directory and modify the registry such that those newly added programs autostart on boot? > Or is it a BUG which was exploited? And if it's a BUG is it odd that the same bug exists across all those releases, has it been known previously, why hasn't it been fixed in, apparently, over 7 years (Windows95 ... XP.) As much as you might not like to hear the answer... since this characteristic is found in all those releases, AND counted upon by large numbers of applications which would be broken if that characteristic were changed... clearly the item in question IS a "feature". Not all "features" are particularly well-considered. This is true for ALL software. (Sometimes it's more important which easily implemented features you LEAVE OUT than which ones you PUT IN.) The FACT remains, however, that restricting certain operations to "root-only" or "sysadmin-only" is really pretty meaningless on typical user-level Windows desktops, where (especially on home machines) there IS no root or sysadmin-level qualified/intelligent/wise authority which is more qualified to approve or deny such requests. As for rapidly getting out patches for SENDMAIL, I'll point out that many of the security weaknesses in Outlook and Outlook Express have been closed by patches that have been out for more than a year, and maybe TWO... but where many users haven't bothered to (or don't realize that they should) install those patches. Certificates attesting to the trustworthiness of incoming executable software are one approach, but typically not a good one especially given the large numbers of applications (freeware/shareware/etc) produced by trustworthy-but-small producers which cannot ante up the bucks for certificates. I still believe that a good alternative that is effective in the great majority of typical cases is to simply by default block unexpected attachments that arrive from unfamiliar. untrusted senders (and most especially if those are of risky/executable types). Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 16:08:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19329 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QK7Z504100 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vd1r-000143-1o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19309; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vd1J-0000rd-VX; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vd0a-0000qS-Bp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:06:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19247 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:06:13 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vd0Y-0005W1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:06:14 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vd0N-0005Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:06:04 -0400 Received: (cpmta 12565 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 12:58:37 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 12:58:37 -0700 X-Sent: 26 Jun 2003 19:58:37 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:58:26 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:25:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Weird spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:25:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I received a very strange spam message, quoted below. Does anyone know what these kind of messages accomplish? > ----snip--- Greetings, > We need a vendor who can offer immediate supply. I'm offering $5,000 US dollars just for referring a vender which is (Actually RELIABLE in providing the below equipment) Contact details of vendor required, including name and phone #. If they turn out to be reliable in supplying the below equipment I'll immediately pay you $5,000. We prefer to work with vendor in the Boston/New York area. [snip] > Email his details to me at: info@federalfundingprogram.com > Please do not reply directly back to this email as it will only be bounced back to you. Clearly, two things. 1) The message allows the spammer to test the validity of the E-mail address (if it bounces, the E-mail address isn't good). What the message actually said matters little for that test. 2) Anyone actually responding to the solicitation will NO DOUBT be placed on a targeted mailing list for people who are at least slightly crazy, and perhaps with a gullibility/susceptibility to solicitations of that sort. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 16:08:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19399 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QK8VO05135 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:08:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vd2l-0001Kk-Sv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:08:31 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19367; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vd2H-0001Ci-8I; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vd1T-0000vu-BA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19287 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:08 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vd1R-0005WQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:07:09 -0400 Received: from h007.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.71] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vd1G-0005WE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:06:59 -0400 Received: (cpmta 16736 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 13:06:38 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.71) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 13:06:38 -0700 X-Sent: 26 Jun 2003 20:06:38 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:06:04 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:33:32 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: rmcallahan@att.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Do-Not-Call list launch E-mails Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:33:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Regardless of how desirable you think your offering is, the bottom line is that your "millions" of E-mails you plan to send ARE unsolicited E-mails, and thus ARE spam. Accordingly they SHOULD be blocked by spam filters throughout the Net. You do NOT have authority from those intended recipients to E-mail them, or to put your stuff in their E-mail inboxes. I suggest that a better solution is to publicize (through news media, etc) how to request being put on the list, and let Internet users contact YOU. As a secondary question... do you intend to be cognizant of user sensitivity about such things and send them as plain ASCII text? Or were you planning to send them as (less-compatible, 3.5x more bulky) HTML-burdened E-mail? Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 16:09:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18839 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QJwXD00784 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vct7-0000CY-8t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18785; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vcsb-0008KT-Nl; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vcrn-0008Jf-R0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:57:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18678 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vco9-0005O6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:53:25 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vcny-0005Mv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:53:14 -0400 Received: (cpmta 28281 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 12:44:37 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 12:44:37 -0700 X-Sent: 26 Jun 2003 19:44:37 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:43:03 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:10:32 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] System hijacking Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:10:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I maintain that the primary problem with spam right now is caused by the hijacking of systems (demonstrably) by the hundreds (probably much more) to spew spam. > I further maintain that without these hijacked systems spammers would be ineffective, a relatively minor nuisance. > There are good, structural reasons why this is the case: > a) Spamming does not provide the sort of margin needed to purchase and maintain the equipment they seem to rely on. Therefore, they must steal it. > b) Even if they could acquire such equipment, and concomitant bandwidth, it would of necessity be located in a relatively static location (e.g., ip addresses), and, so, relatively easy to just block. Regardless, the point remains that a good, consent-based system in which the recipient can allow [only!] some trusted correspondents to send them attachments (and blocking unexpected/untrusted attachments that arrive from anywhere else) would appear to be a major step in the direction of blocking these kinds of programs that open backends on systems that can be subsequently exploited by spammers. Happily, it also blocks the great majority of viruses, worms, and trojans too (especially if one makes for slightly finer degree of control such that one can make a distinction between "non-threatening" attachments like JPG/GIF/TXT/BMP files versus "risky" attachments such as .COM, .EXE, .PIF, .SCR and such filetypes.) The great majority of senders would not need attachment permission at all, and even fewer (NONE for many recipients) would have EXECUTABLE attachment permission. And those who were unknown would by default be simply blocked in sending anything containing attachments at all. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:05:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21660 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QL5Mm30098 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdvm-0007pN-Bk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21623; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdvg-00061x-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdvb-00061u-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdvR-0007iT-KR; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VduM-0007hp-Vd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:04:10 -0400 Received: from nber13.nber.org (nber13.nber.org [207.113.108.238]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21536 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nber13.nber.org (localhost.nber.org [127.0.0.1]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h5QL34Yq039383 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h5QL34aX039382 for asrg@ietf.org.KAV; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.nber.org (mail1.nber.org [207.113.108.7]) by nber13.nber.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h5QL32Yr039365; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:03:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: gep2@terabites.com cc: rmcallahan@att.com, Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do-Not-Call list launch E-mails In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:03:07 -0400 (EDT) On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 gep2@terabites.com wrote: > Regardless of how desirable you think your offering is, the bottom line is that > your "millions" of E-mails you plan to send ARE unsolicited E-mails, and thus > ARE spam. > I think the original message was fairly clear that the messages would only be sent to people signing up on the web page for call blocking, so they are solicited. If AT&T were to send messages to random people asking if they wanted the service, that would be unsolicited. The original posting mentioned "millions of messages" because they assume that millions of people will visit the web page to request calls be blocked. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:09:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21796 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QL8XL32162 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdyr-0008Me-Ba for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21763; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdyL-00089Q-LV; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdx9-0007u5-C2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21706 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:06:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdx7-00062e-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:06:45 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdwu-00062Z-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:06:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626170451.00b9aee0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , "Paul Judge" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:18 -0400 I added the policy to the IPR document at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html At 06:36 AM 6/13/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >This is good. Are you going to post it somewhere permanent? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul.judge@ciphertrust.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:46 PM > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay; 'Asrg@ietf.org' > > Subject: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) > > > > > > > > We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the > > ASRG. It is based on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. > > > > > > "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the > > contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and > > conditions > > on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he > > represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety > > rights in the > > contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in > > addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual > > submission, the > > actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was > > made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on > > his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and > > any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. > > > > The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of > > any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the > > contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the > > contributor. The contributor does not represent that he > > personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and > > intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the > > organization > > he represents (if any) or third parties." > > > > This means that the person submitting a proposal is > > responsible for stating any relevant IPR that he knows about > > even if he is not the holder of the rights. This does allow > > for other members to notify a contributor about relevant IPR > > after the initial submission. The contributor should then > > disclose this information in revisions of the contribution. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:42 PM > > > To: Peter Kay; Asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > > > > > > > At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > > > > > >IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think > > > its best to > > > >let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the > > > >unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just > > > say "these > > > >are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that > > > makes it clean > > > >and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. > > > > > > In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for > > > example - they > > > are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not > > > approached, and > > > since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must > > > approach them to > > > solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. > > > Otherwise, we > > > might be working on a standard only to find out that it is > > > patented. As for > > > the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of > > > anti-spam, I am > > > agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog > > > all patents in > > > the world. > > > > > > Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following > > > policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad > > > business methods patents > > > such as the MailBlocks patents. > > > 2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit > > > information > > > about it. > > > 3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of > > > the group as > > > they send them. > > > > > > P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us > > > know some > > > details on your IP. Feel free to use the template > > > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:10:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21854 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QL9XV00323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdzp-000058-DJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21831; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdzK-0008O4-KS; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdzB-0008NM-TL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:53 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21788 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5QL0Kxp010581 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:00:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306262100.h5QL0Kxp010581@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bug, or Feature? References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:00:20 -0600 (MDT) > From: gep2@terabites.com > ... > The FACT remains, however, that restricting certain operations to "root-only" or > "sysadmin-only" is really pretty meaningless on typical user-level Windows > desktops, where (especially on home machines) there IS no root or sysadmin-level > qualified/intelligent/wise authority which is more qualified to approve or deny > such requests. If that made sense, then mail sent to "root" on UNIX boxes would be a major hazard. If it made sense, then XP would not be Microsoft-standard vulnerable to viruses and worms. The problem with Windows boxes is not they have a single user account, but that the single user account (on those Microsoft boxes were there there is any notion of "user account" and so not Windows-ME and preceding) always has all privileges. A good picture of the problem is in the difference between ActiveX and Java. Microsoft has asserted quite emphatically that the lack of a "sandbox" in ActiveX is a feature instead of a bug. That nonsense cannot be excused as historical baggage, because ActiveX is a post-Internet mistake. > I still believe that a good alternative that is effective in the great majority > of typical cases is to simply by default block unexpected attachments that > arrive from unfamiliar. untrusted senders (and most especially if those are of > risky/executable types). Let's see, what systems are built to to make it easy to execute code that arrives by mail and even often without any let, leave, or hindrance by the user? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:10:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21898 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLAWO00887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:10:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve0m-0000EE-1d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:10:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21892; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve0H-000066-G6; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve00-00005l-6i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21844 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdzy-000647-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:42 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdzl-00063w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:30 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626170801.00b55e48@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list In-Reply-To: <001501c3382e$cfc06750$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 At 03:53 PM 6/21/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Another patent should be added to the list of patents relevant to spam. >This one may have implications for C/R related methods. > >US Patent: 6,246,996 "Computerized system for facilitating transactions >between parties on the internet using e-mail" Granted: June 12, 2001 >Based on initial filing on Sep. 16, 1994. >See: >http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6246996 > >The inventors are: Lee Stein, Einar Stefferud, Nathaniel Borenstein, and >Marshall Rose... I added the patent to the IPR document. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:12:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21987 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLCXZ01989 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:12:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve2j-0000W0-1P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:12:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21942; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve2D-0000Fm-OX; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:12:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve1w-0000FO-60 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21928 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ve1t-00064k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:41 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ve1h-00064d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626170921.00b95000@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] IPR Disclosure from TitanKey Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:07 -0400 Peter Key of TitanKey has made an IPR disclosure regarding his IP, this information appears below and has been added to the IPR document: ---------snip------- 4.2. TitanKey. 1. IP Owner Information. TitanKey Software, LLC. Honolulu, Hawaii. Web site: www.titankey.com 2. Type of IP. patent (pending) 3. IP Information. 1. From original disclosure by Peter Key: Provisional application 60/152,025 filed 09/01/1999, Second provisional application 60/180,937 filed 02/02/2000. US Patent application 09/648,894 filed 8/25/2000, International Patent PCT/US00/23561. Filed 8/25/2000. CIP (improvement) 10/404,631, filed 3/31/2003 4. References. 1. From Original Disclosure by Peter Key: International patent application (identical to USPTO application) How it works How a VPM (Virtual Private Email) works 5. Licensing Declaration. (X) Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a willingness to license in some form to all implementers; otherwise, "Unwilling to License to All Implementers" must be selected) 6. Possible Prior Art. none 7. Notes. 1. From original disclosure by Peter Kay: "This core of invention modifies the traditional SMTP transaction in that the MAIL FROM address is compared against a database of various rules including a whitelist. The rules analysis decides whether to continue the SMTP transaction, or if not, a 550 "no such user" response is given and the transaction stops before the DATA command, effectively stopping unwanted email before it is sent. Depending on the rule conditions, an invitation email can be sent to the MAIL FROM address asking the sender to identify themselves. Proper response to the invitation email may allow the sender to be added to the whitelist and subsequent emails can be sent without being rejected. A functional layer atop the core provides a "VPM" (Virtual Private Email): A user can create an email address and assign specific policies as to how that email address can be used. Senders that violate the policy bound to the email address are rejected with the 550 response before the DATA command. This VPM invention addresses drawbacks associated with Challenge/Response systems that make it difficult for users to subscribe to newsletters or critical notification emails like order confirmations." ---------snip------- Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:17:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22080 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLGX803970 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:16:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve6b-00011x-Ej for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:16:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22055; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve65-0000pJ-LJ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve4p-0000fs-Pb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:15:13 -0400 Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls2.std.com [199.172.62.104]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22027 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from world.std.com (jeanie@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QLBls8018745; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:48 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29633; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.24973.947266.863199@world.std.com> To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Cc: asrg@ietf.org, public-p3p-spec@w3.org, rmcallahan@att.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <200306260120.h5Q1KZ5U025169@nic-naa.net> References: <200306260120.h5Q1KZ5U025169@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:41 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 25, 2003 at 21:20 brunner@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine) wrote: > Folks, > > This was sent to nanog earlier in the day. Asrg contributors would help > the (US jurisdiction) FTC's "Do Not Call" (phone spam) service roll-out > by letting Richard Callahan know how to keep the eventual AT&T GS mails > from being some systems' false-positive, and not delivered. > They're not paying me so why should I care? Oh, don't tell me, he's decided he deserves a chunk of net subscriber fees to subsidize the delivery. Get in line! Or, it's a GOOD THING so therefore we are all OBLIGATED to provide whatever resources he needs for free. Just like the post office delivers his messages for free when they're for a worthy cause (yeah right.) Put another way, he'll get what he pays for. Which, in this case, is about zero. This is what I mean by billion-dollar corps weasling in on the free mass-mailing biz. Why is AT&T doing this? Charity? Goodness of their hearts? Or are they compelled by regulations or some court decision or order? Today it's the oh-so-reasonable-sounding Do Not Call list notifications, tomorrow, their bills, next day, changes in service etc, then 1-800-CALL-ATT ads, etc. Tell him if he wants reliability to stick it in an envelope with a stamp on it. Otherwise he should be prepared to take what he gets. And maybe even a bill. We reserve the right to charge for such mass mailing, USE CONSITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS, or refuse it entirely. Gak, he's even trying to get free advice on how to get millions of dollars worth of free mailing reliably. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:20:00 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22224 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLJXN06202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve9V-0001bx-OQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22180; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve90-0001GU-47; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve8a-0001Fg-3k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22143 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ve8I-000671-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:18 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ve88-00066c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:08 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm07.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5QLH1d29768 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLV61PF0; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:17:02 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6DLS; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:17:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB6395.5050803@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammers looking for sites that don't bounce? References: <200306260310.h5Q3AawS027940@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > I think you misread what I said. I said that they are specifically > looking for NON-rejected messages to fake addresses as a sign that mail > is being filtered out without being bounced. You couldn't prove that by my spamtrap. It accepts everything, but doesn't forward anything anywhere. The daily volume is going up very quickly (it's > 2 million/day now). There are some very stupid dictionary scanners (one day 7+ million probes by an IP in singapore. Next day another few million from another IP in singapore. Rinse, lather and repeat.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:20:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22245 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLJc406222 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve9a-0001cH-Oz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22179; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve8z-0001Fz-NL; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ve8B-0001Fb-8H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22135 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:07 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ve88-00066t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:18:09 -0400 Received: from h000.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.64] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ve7y-00066f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:17:58 -0400 Received: (cpmta 22396 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 14:17:18 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 14:17:18 -0700 X-Sent: 26 Jun 2003 21:17:18 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:16:44 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:44:12 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do-Not-Call list launch E-mails To: Daniel Feenberg , gep2@terabites.com Cc: rmcallahan@att.com, In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:44:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > >On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> Regardless of how desirable you think your offering is, the bottom line is that >> your "millions" of E-mails you plan to send ARE unsolicited E-mails, and thus >> ARE spam. >> > >I think the original message was fairly clear that the messages would only >be sent to people signing up on the web page for call blocking, so they >are solicited. I did not see that message. Sorry. > If AT&T were to send messages to random people asking if >they wanted the service, that would be unsolicited. Absolutely. >The original posting mentioned "millions of messages" because they >assume that millions of people will visit the web page to request calls be >blocked. In any case, just sending out a lot of E-mail messages on an individual basis shouldn't result in them being blocked. But clearly the more personalized information they contain regarding the person to which each is sent (name, e-mail address, IP address and maybe the time and date from which they signed up for the service, etc etc) the less likely the E-mails will look alike and trigger spam filters. But I'd still recommend, too, that the E-mails be sent in compact, compatible-with-everyone plain ASCII text, too. :-) I know that some recipients DO systematically filter HTML-burdened E-mail, and sending in plain ASCII text increases the likelihood that the mail will be delivered. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:21:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22335 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLLWn07298 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:21:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeBQ-0001td-RO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:21:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22303; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeAv-0001gb-TH; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeAH-0001gL-T0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22284 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeAF-00067m-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:19 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeA4-00067R-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:20:09 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm03.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5QLJWd29843 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLV61PMC; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:32 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6DLW; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:19:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB642C.8040606@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:22:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Well, this raises an interesting issue that I mentioned before - if a > virus takes over someone's email client, lets say Outlook, and starts > sending spam from that person's account which is legit, there isn't much > we can do. Someone else suggested that imposing a rate limit and > notifing the customer in case the limit is reached, would be a possible > solution. Ah, but the email _isn't_ legit. You're conflating "valid sender" with "non-spam". See the C&W Rep on the FTC Spam Panel on "The future of spam" session, where he talks about these things. Very chilling. And also very entertaining. He's a great speaker. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:24:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22476 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLOAZ08808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeDy-0002Hy-6D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22462; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeDv-0006A9-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeDq-0006A6-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeDp-0002Aj-D2; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeD2-00023C-GP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22437 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeD0-00069f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:10 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeCn-00069C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:22:58 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626172052.00bcecd0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch Cc: asrg@ietf.org, public-p3p-spec@w3.org, rmcallahan@att.com In-Reply-To: <16123.24973.947266.863199@world.std.com> References: <200306260120.h5Q1KZ5U025169@nic-naa.net> <200306260120.h5Q1KZ5U025169@nic-naa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:22:31 -0400 At 05:11 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 25, 2003 at 21:20 brunner@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams in >Portland Maine) wrote: > > Folks, > > > > This was sent to nanog earlier in the day. Asrg contributors would help > > the (US jurisdiction) FTC's "Do Not Call" (phone spam) service roll-out > > by letting Richard Callahan know how to keep the eventual AT&T GS mails > > from being some systems' false-positive, and not delivered. > > > >They're not paying me so why should I care? >[..] The no-call list specifically is used by consumers such as YOUR ISP subscribers who PAY you. They are soliciting this information by signing up on the FTC's website. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:25:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22540 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLP7210263 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeEt-0002fS-Jk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22501; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeEr-0006Au-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeEl-0006Ar-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeEn-0002Lu-5I; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeDr-0002CM-Ku for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22458 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeDp-0006A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:01 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeDd-00069w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:50 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:25 -0400 I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based system as per charter: 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter incoming email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, and are not mandated. Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from banning all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist of trusted senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of unknown senders. Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to the bulk folder, and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses of trusted senders, but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features such as digital signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such email from trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the inbox unless blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon receiving a positive response automatically whitelist the sender. 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as email coming from known open relays is blocked. 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or encrypted to protect privacy. Any thoughts? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:25:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22555 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLP8J10294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeEu-0002fx-JN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22506; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeEs-0006Az-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeEm-0006Aw-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeEo-0002QR-5o; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeEO-0002LN-VG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22473 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeEM-0006AW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:34 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeEB-0006AA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:23 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QLNrtD014421; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:53 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02628; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.25704.514090.720043@world.std.com> To: Kee Hinckley Cc: Vernon Schryver , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spammers looking for sites that don't bounce? In-Reply-To: References: <200306260310.h5Q3AawS027940@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:23:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suppose anything that can be programmed is possible. But one also has to be careful of that effect whose name I forget where people see patterns in random noise. As I've reported here before spammers often use over a hundred hijacked computers nearly simultaneously spewing the same basic spam (including variations, but I mean for the same "client", the same basic come-on.) So for example if they were streaming by on your screen you might notice that when you raise you right hand, they switch to IP addresses with at least one prime number in the quad, but when you raise your left hand, they switch back to non-primes, etc. It's a common effect and at least one to watch out for. Also, anthropomorphizing the data, a similar effect, assigning intent to what might be random behavior in the data. Or maybe they're doing all this. Or maybe he's being slammed by what appears to be spam from a clever and malicious script-kiddie just trying to drive him bonkers because he closed an account for non-payment or something. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:26:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22638 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLQ9611013 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeFt-0002rY-Al for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22616; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeFq-0006Bv-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeFl-0006Bs-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeFl-0002jb-Pt; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeFL-0002jL-9e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22538 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeFI-0006BU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:33 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeF8-0006Ak-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:22 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm07.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5QLOhd00080 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLV61PZ4; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:43 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6DL8; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:24:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB6563.3020208@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124043.00bb4ea0@std5.imagineis.com> <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> <200306261443.16139.dja2003@hotpop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Aronson wrote: > Vernon Schryver wrote: > > > Let's do some arithmetic. At $10/hour and 10 seconds per challenge > > answered or account created, the cost would be about $0.03 address. > > That sounds a little but not very high to send mail until the > > challenge whitelist entry is deleted by the spam target. It sounds > > low for a valid sender account that can be used for millions of > > messages for days until the free provider notices enough bounces > > or receives a complaint and terminates it. > > Does anybody have any actual numbers on how good a return spammers get on > their spam, in terms of, say, cents per thousand spams? They vary all over the map. Betterly talked about making 5 $300 sales from a million spams. One of the reported "takes" from the IRAQ playing cards spammer was on the order of $18 for several million spams. Note that MSN's DAV system has had a 100/day limit for a long while. They appeared to implement the human test a week or so ago. (volume dropped off from about 20,000 per day to a handful). A little bird talked about DAV abusers registering thousands of accounts at a time. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:27:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22691 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLR8J11795 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeGp-00034A-Uh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22661; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeGn-0006CU-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeGh-0006CR-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeGj-0002xb-F3; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeGI-0002x6-5Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22634 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeGF-0006CE-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:31 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeFx-0006Br-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626172459.00bd9290@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Chris Lewis" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3EFB642C.8040606@americasm01.nt.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:25:41 -0400 At 05:22 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Chris Lewis wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>Well, this raises an interesting issue that I mentioned before - if a >>virus takes over someone's email client, lets say Outlook, and starts >>sending spam from that person's account which is legit, there isn't much >>we can do. Someone else suggested that imposing a rate limit and notifing >>the customer in case the limit is reached, would be a possible solution. > >Ah, but the email _isn't_ legit. You're conflating "valid sender" with >"non-spam". Thanks for pointing this out - valid sender does not mean non-spam. >See the C&W Rep on the FTC Spam Panel on "The future of spam" session, >where he talks about these things. > >Very chilling. > >And also very entertaining. He's a great speaker. I will take a look, would you have a link by any chance? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:29:52 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22806 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLTPP13640 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeJ3-0003Xv-R3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22770; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeIm-0006ER-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeIg-0006EO-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeIf-0003IG-8n; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeIB-0003Hc-Vy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22744 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeHu-0006DX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:14 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeHj-0006CN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:28:03 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm03.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5QLQmd00153 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLV61QAP; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:49 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6DMB; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:26:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB65E0.2030002@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D229A@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:30:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think that we have to be realistic about the cost/benefit issue here. > > Yes it is possible for a spammer to hire people to sign up for these > schemes. However to do so requires capital which has an effect on the > starting out spam senders. > > A spam sender that tries to do this in bulk is going to start to hit limits > on the number of addresses a given IP address can sign up for at a time. Multiply that by the at least 200,000 unsecured proxies in the wild. > It strikes me that it might be a good scheme to allow the spam senders to > register large numbers of domains but mark them as being suspect spamhaus > addresses. Then monitor the emails being sent out with spam filters and chop > the account. Gets back to the issue of how you detect spam... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:46:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23327 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLkBi17029 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZH-0004QZ-Az for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23309; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZE-0006Le-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZ8-0006LW-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZ7-0004Hz-IG; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZ3-0004Gf-Ca for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23301 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZ0-0006LH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:54 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeYq-0006Kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:44 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2487472; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:11 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: gep2@terabites.com From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do-Not-Call list launch E-mails Cc: rmcallahan@att.com, asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:59 -0400 At 3:33 PM -0500 6/26/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >Regardless of how desirable you think your offering is, the bottom >line is that >your "millions" of E-mails you plan to send ARE unsolicited E-mails, and thus >ARE spam. Unless I misread. Those messages are confirmation messages for people who asked to have their number blocked. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:46:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23325 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLkBV17036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZH-0004Qa-CV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23306; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZE-0006Lg-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZ8-0006LX-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZ6-0004Gq-GX; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeYE-0004G1-Qu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23276 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeYC-0006Kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:04 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeY1-0006Kh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:53 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (jeanie@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QLiC2u013344; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:12 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06602; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.26921.667438.154179@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Dave Aronson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626151205.00bb62b0@std5.imagineis.com> References: <200306261657.h5QGvlZx019967@calcite.rhyolite.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626124043.00bb4ea0@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626151205.00bb62b0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 15:12 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > There was a news article a while back somewhere about the Iraq playing > cards that were made by some company. It had some financial figures. I'd like to see some harder data, like a signed tax form for a company which made most of its income on spam, an SEC filing, etc. I just have a little trouble believing what a marketeer tells a news reporter about how great business is, particularly when they figure they might have an interest. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 17:57:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21795 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QL8X032168 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdyr-0008Mf-DV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21764; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdyM-00089y-6d; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdyI-000898-TH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21742 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VdyG-000639-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:56 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdy4-000631-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:45 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626170715.00b8fe98@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org, "bob@wyman.us" , "Peter Kay" From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Update of IPR document Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:15 -0400 The IPR document has been updated, it can be found at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html The following items were updated: June 14th, 2003 / Added ASRG Official IPR Policy June 26th, 2003 / Added IPR disclosure for TitanKey; added a new patent for C/R Yakov --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 18:02:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23750 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QM29M19221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Veoj-0004zv-SW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23740; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Veoh-0006Rb-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Veob-0006RY-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Veob-0004vj-1S; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Venu-0004tQ-6G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:01:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23729 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Venr-0006RJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:01:15 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Veng-0006RG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:01:04 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QM102u024955; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:01:00 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA09796; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:01:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.27931.953786.128919@world.std.com> To: gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bug, or Feature? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:00:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit These long-winded apologias for microsoft are touching (and I hope paid for!) HOWEVER, what would've been so hard about putting in a goddamn pop-up confirm box triggered at the system level which said something like: THAT ACTION IS TRYING TO MODIFY YOUR SYSTEM SOFTWARE AND/OR THE REGISTRY etc etc. Proceed? [YES] [NO] [HELP] based on some reasonable rules so it's a reasonably meaningful warning? Lord knows they ask confirmation for everything else you do it seems. Sure, some dummy might click yes to everything but at least when you just opened an email and suddenly there are 110db sirens and blaring red lights it just might occur to someone to click [NO] or [HELP] particularly after being warned a 100,000 times in every other CNN HN and USA Today issue that if you see that warning and you don't have some vendor's disk in the drive doing an install then be VERY SUSPICIOUS. And don't tell me about why Windows '95 doesn't have anything like this (wasn't obvious in 1995, actually, it was, maybe Windows 3.0 has that as an excuse), only tell me why Windows XP doesn't. Or whatever. The point is FOR WHATEVER REASON this mass-distributed technology flaw appears to be the base root of the spam problem. And that's what we're here to discuss. Even if Gates et al only put it in there because it would help a poor, blind, cripple become more self-sufficient and regain their pride and integrity in a cruel and cold world I DON'T CARE. I only care why the net is being flooded with spam and trying to figure out what to do about it. What next? How spam may be the only way for poor, starving third-worlders to feed their families? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 18:05:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24035 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QM58J21706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Verc-0005db-Qf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23969; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VerZ-0006Sc-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VerU-0006SZ-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VerV-0005OZ-AE; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Veqo-0005O5-LI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:04:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23896 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Veql-0006SR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:04:16 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Veqb-0006Rj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:04:05 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ABZ49052; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-143-229.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.143.229]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJM31318; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list Message-ID: <005a01c33c2e$a190a800$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-reply-to: <000b01c32fbc$b4e8f930$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Today, another patent application was filed for a system which uses throw-away or "single-user" email addresses as part of a method for protecting people from exposure to spam. See: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=3DPTO2&Sect2=3DHITOFF&p=3D= 1&u =3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3D1&f=3DG&l=3D50&co1=3DAND&d=3D= PG01&s1=3D200 30120656.PGNR.&OS=3DDN/20030120656&RS=3DDN/20030120656 US Patent Application: 20030120656 System, apparatus, and computer program for protecting personal attributes information=20 Abstract Disclosed is a system for protecting personal attributes information (PAI) to inhibit unauthorized use of personal information disclosed on the network and protect the disclosed information. The system comprises: a terminal apparatus including PAI managing means to generate and manage customer's attributes information, and PAI protecting means to modify changeable items of the customer's attributes information to be transmitted to a destination across a network in such a manner as to make different changes for different destinations; and a center apparatus which offers services in a manner refined by using customer's attributes information received from the terminal apparatus. Even if a personal information leak occurred, defensive action can be taken promptly by discarding the e-mail address disclosed to the information leaker without changing the e-mail address in ordinary use. The information leaker can be traced from the leaked e-mail address and dealt with warningly afterward.=20 Inventors:Kageyama, Mitsuhiro; (Tokyo, JP) ; Tsurubayashi, Ken; (Tokyo, JP) ; Sato, Mitsuhiro; (Atsugi-shi, JP) ; Suzuki, Hiroyuki; (Kawasaki-shi, JP) ; Uranaka, Sachiko; (Tokyo, JP)=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 18:32:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23326 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QLkBq17030 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZH-0004QU-8z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23304; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZE-0006La-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeZ8-0006LV-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeZ7-0004HM-4v; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VeYx-0004GZ-UP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23295 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeYv-0006LE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:49 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VeYk-0006Kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:38 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2487479 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:45:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] System hijacking Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:44:02 -0400 At 3:10 PM -0500 6/26/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: >The great majority of senders would not need attachment permission 6% of the email to wormalert contains attachments. Virtually all of those messages were sent to everyone in the recipients address book. (E.g. baby pictures, jokes...) A number of email companies have based their entire business model on the fact that their user's email messages *always* include attachments. Based on those, I would guess that no major software company will support a proposal which blocks attachments by default. Furthermore, I would expect them to fight any such proposal quite vigorously. And even if they fail, and such a system is put in place, people will very rapidly white list everyone of their close friends. Thus negating any benefit in fighting viruses. (The issue with executable attachments isn't so much that they are accepted, but that the email client is fooled into thinking that they aren't executable. If that bug isn't fixed, then obviously the ability to do selective blocking won't be there either. Blocking at the server sounds tempting, but unfortunately it means trying to guess what nutty attachment syntax Outlook might actually recognize, as opposed to what the standards said they should accept.) -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 18:49:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25889 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QMnF905780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VfYI-0001V9-UV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25876; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VfYF-0006iH-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VfYA-0006iE-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VfY5-0001Li-AO; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VfXT-0001LH-Bt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:48:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25846 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VfXB-0006hb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:48:05 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VfX0-0006hN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:47:54 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5QMlSZR027340 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:47:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306262247.h5QMlSZR027340@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch References: <16123.24973.947266.863199@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:47:28 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > > This was sent to nanog earlier in the day. Asrg contributors would help > > the (US jurisdiction) FTC's "Do Not Call" (phone spam) service roll-out > > by letting Richard Callahan know how to keep the eventual AT&T GS mails > > from being some systems' false-positive, and not delivered. > > They're not paying me so why should I care? > > Oh, don't tell me, he's decided he deserves a chunk of net subscriber > fees to subsidize the delivery. Get in line! > ... That's still nonsense. Your customers are paying you, not AT&T or other third parties (unless you are a "free" provider). If your customers don't want confirmation mail, whether from the FTC's DNC machinery or some mailing list, then you should not accept it. If your customers don't pay you enough to deal with their email including the FTC's DNC confirmations, then you should either raise your rates or fire those customers that are too expensive to deal with. > .. > Gak, he's even trying to get free advice on how to get millions of > dollars worth of free mailing reliably. That is not at all what he asked. He only asked how to avoid your filters that you have installed at the behest of your customers so that the mail that your customers are paying you to deliver is in fact delivered to them. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 18:57:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26031 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QMv9E08027 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vffx-00025O-4l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26010; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vfft-0006ks-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vffo-0006kp-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vffp-00021v-Db; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vfew-00021Z-Ck for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:56:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25996 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vfee-0006kM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:55:48 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VfeT-0006kJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:55:37 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5QMsod04603 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:54:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVYNKJB; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:54:51 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6DNS; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:54:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB7A82.6030905@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626172459.00bd9290@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:58:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> See the C&W Rep on the FTC Spam Panel on "The future of spam" session, >> where he talks about these things. >> >> Very chilling. >> >> And also very entertaining. He's a great speaker. > I will take a look, would you have a link by any chance? Everything appears to be online at http://bruce.pennypacker.org/ftc/, transcripts, audios and full video. Here we go, it's Dr. Bill Hancock, Day 1, fourth session. Session title "Open Relays/Open Proxies/Formmail scripts". That will be tape 4. I'm on tape 5 & 6, with a cameo on 4 ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 19:04:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26310 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QN3aM09450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:03:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VfmC-0002SK-GV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:03:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26232; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vfgq-0006lc-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:58:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vfgk-0006lZ-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vfgm-00029Y-VL; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:58:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vffx-00025f-Ui for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26015 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vffu-0006kl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:57:06 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vffk-0006kU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:56:56 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm07.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5QMuJd04623 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLV61WJ1; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:56:20 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.136]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6DN4; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:56:20 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFB7ADB.4070009@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do-Not-Call list launch E-mails References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:59:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 3:33 PM -0500 6/26/03, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> Regardless of how desirable you think your offering is, the bottom >> line is that >> your "millions" of E-mails you plan to send ARE unsolicited E-mails, >> and thus >> ARE spam. > Unless I misread. Those messages are confirmation messages for people > who asked to have their number blocked. That's _exactly_ what they are. They're just concerned that the volumes may be so high, people's rate limiters may go off. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 19:31:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27186 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QNVIf17899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgD0-0004ec-B2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27180; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgCy-00075J-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgCt-00075B-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgCi-0004Rj-JZ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:31:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgCN-0004RO-Ub for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:30:54 -0400 Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls2.std.com [199.172.62.104]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27147 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QNR4oS014919; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:27:05 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25395; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:27:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.33096.155023.148156@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:27:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 11:13 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > Well, this raises an interesting issue that I mentioned before - if a virus > takes over someone's email client, lets say Outlook, and starts sending > spam from that person's account which is legit, there isn't much we can do. Wait a minute, let's restate that a little more accurately: If we can conclude that MILLIONS of PCs are PURPOSELY being infected by viruses designed to turn them into spam delivery robots...then there's nothing we can do? Sure we can, for starters we can alert all interested parties that this is underlying the spam problem and more importantly agree that this is the real problem. It's not the message, it's the amplification. And the amplification is being obtained criminally and massively. And it's only through this illegally obtained amplification is spam the problem we see. You've all got to stop thinking like end-users who can only see the message on your screen and start thinking like network engineers and ask questions like how the heck did some two-bit punk just send 100M get rich quick spams from hundreds of different IP addresses? And, further, would this really be much of a problem if they couldn't do exactly that? Could Joe Chickenboner and his 386 on a 56k dialup really send out 100M msgs from that one machine before being shut down or at least blocked by 95% of the net? I don't think so. If every phone in NYC suddenly rang at the same time (or as many as is possible) and the voice on the line said "BUY BLAMMO COLA!" would you say the problem was that you and 8 million others received an ad for Blammo Cola you didn't want or that SOMEONE HAS MANAGED TO RING 8 MILLION PHONES SIMULTANEOUSLY and what sort of breach of the phone system does that represent? This is a RESEARCH group. Let's start by trying to get to the truth of the matter, rather than trying to define the underlying cause only in terms of the implementation problem we find attractive or easy. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 19:51:10 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27786 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QNof927573 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:50:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgVl-0007Ae-IS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:50:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27779; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgVj-0007Em-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:50:39 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgVe-0007Ej-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:50:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgV6-00074v-QK; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:50:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgUS-00074G-Is for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27705 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgUB-0007Dv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:03 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgU1-0007B5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:48:53 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19VgOy-0001lh-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:43:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:43:40 +0100 > I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based system as > per > charter: > > Point 1 is kindof axiomatic. Point 6 is probably a "good thing". 2-5 are interesting if you believe that consent is limited to cases where a receiver consents to any message from a listed (possibly authenticated) sender. . I don't believe that this adds up to what you claim. There was some more fundamental (but probably premature) discussion of "consent" early in the life this group. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 19:54:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27853 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QNsBP30117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgZ9-0007pg-Gz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27848; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgZ7-0007G8-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgZ1-0007G5-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgYy-0007eG-Uo; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgYj-0007dw-JE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27842 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgYh-0007Fu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:43 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgYX-0007Fo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:33 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QNnBtD007972; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:12 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29412; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.34423.451831.720851@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A. There's nothing new here. B. It remains to be shown that the approach is useful. C. Repeating once again how these "rules and filters" are somehow going to magically appear won't make it happen. D. "For each email user the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist..." MUAs don't maintain whitelists, people do. And that's the crux of the problem as has been shown repeatedly, people generally don't know the exact details of where the confirmation of their FTC/AT&T no-call list is going to come from to put them on their whitelist. Etc. So when they don't get the email and realize it's because they can't possibly maintain a whitelist correctly they give up on whitelists. The ISPs maintaining the whitelist has privacy issues (and don't just jump back to ok then keep it in the MUA, that's a shell game, if half your proposal lacks merit that's a problem.) Not too many senators want to tell AOL that they think the email they get from hotties@big-butts.com is ok and should be allowed through. E. What are these digital certificates etc? What scheme are you basing all this on? Or are you proposing that a new state of the art be generated on demand (of the proposal's requirements)? Anyhow, it's the same old dead-end "let's hypothesize a magical program which only lets through what we want to see", declare victory, and go home. Since no one has been able to write this program thus far, and many years and many people have tried, and there appears to be millions of dollars to be had for the first person to show up with this program, why would you want to carve its existence in stone? I don't see "research" as equivalent to "wishful thinking". On June 26, 2003 at 17:23 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based system as per > charter: > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter incoming email. > Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, and are not mandated. > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from banning all email > not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist of trusted > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of unknown senders. > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to the bulk folder, > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or erased. > 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses of trusted senders, > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features such as digital > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such email from > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the inbox unless > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon receiving a > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as email coming > from known open relays is blocked. > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or encrypted to > protect privacy. > > Any thoughts? > > Yakov > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 19:55:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27914 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:55:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QNt7n30852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:55:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vga3-00081X-9O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:55:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27887; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vga1-0007GH-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:55:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgZv-0007GE-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgZw-0007rP-Rh; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgYp-0007e1-06 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27845 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgYn-0007Fz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:49 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgYc-0007Fo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:53:38 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (jeanie@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5QNZutD023498; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:35:56 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27326; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:35:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.33628.26016.673750@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine , asrg@ietf.org, public-p3p-spec@w3.org, rmcallahan@att.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626172052.00bcecd0@std5.imagineis.com> References: <200306260120.h5Q1KZ5U025169@nic-naa.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626172052.00bcecd0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:35:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 17:22 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > > >They're not paying me so why should I care? > >[..] > > The no-call list specifically is used by consumers such as YOUR ISP > subscribers who PAY you. They are soliciting this information by signing up > on the FTC's website. So by your reasoning because most people pay for their telephone service then AT&T should allow the FTC to just make millions of free phone calls to them all over the country (or world) to deliver these confirmations. Ok, I think we have a solution there. Now you're going to faux lecture me on how things are again. Yet, it occurs to me that we're all here because how things ARE isn't WORKING. I'm here to tell you things must change. There's more to this spam problem than a little perl script is going to solve There's crime, and there's greed, in a nutshell. How surprising in this otherwise perfect and altruistic world. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 20:15:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28398 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R0FDh07587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgtV-0001yI-A5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28382; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgtT-0007OY-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgtN-0007OV-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgtJ-0001r0-7x; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vgsf-0001qe-GZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:14:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28306 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgsO-0007Mw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:14:04 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgsA-0007MJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:13:53 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R0D5mA013802 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:13:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270013.h5R0D5mA013802@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch References: <16123.33628.26016.673750@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:13:05 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > > The no-call list specifically is used by consumers such as YOUR ISP > > subscribers who PAY you. They are soliciting this information by signing up > > on the FTC's website. > > So by your reasoning because most people pay for their telephone > service then AT&T should allow the FTC to just make millions of free > phone calls to them all over the country (or world) to deliver these > confirmations. > ... That's a nonsense analogy. You're like a cell phone carrier instead of a long distance carrier. Like a U.S. cell phone carrier, your paying customer is the recipient of the message. Cell phone carriers don't whine when their customers burn all of their minutes on phone-sex or even on frauds routed to island nations. Instead they raise rates or cancel customer accounts. If your customers are receiving too much mail of any sort including spam for what they pay you, then you should either raise your rates or terminate their accounts. No matter how much you'd like a piece of AT&T's pie or a cut of the action of any third party that sends content to your customers by SMTP, HTTP, or any other IP protocol, you have no reasonable claim, at least not unless you make a private deal AOL and others. If you don't have AOL's clout to get other big outfits to pay for your customer's "eyes," then you have my sympathy, but only a little. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 20:18:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28480 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R0I8P09085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgwK-0002MS-EA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28472; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgwI-0007Pu-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgwC-0007Pr-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgwD-0002Dq-Ce; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VgwC-0002Df-FT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:18:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28465 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VgwA-0007Pl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:17:58 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vgvz-0007PJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:17:47 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5R0GWtq017750; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:16:32 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05982; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.36063.107676.763852@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <200306262247.h5QMlSZR027340@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <16123.24973.947266.863199@world.std.com> <200306262247.h5QMlSZR027340@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:16:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 16:47 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > From: Barry Shein > > > ... > > > This was sent to nanog earlier in the day. Asrg contributors would help > > > the (US jurisdiction) FTC's "Do Not Call" (phone spam) service roll-out > > > by letting Richard Callahan know how to keep the eventual AT&T GS mails > > > from being some systems' false-positive, and not delivered. > > > > They're not paying me so why should I care? > > > > Oh, don't tell me, he's decided he deserves a chunk of net subscriber > > fees to subsidize the delivery. Get in line! > > ... > > That's still nonsense. Why thank you for the collegial consideration! Your customers are paying you, not AT&T or > other third parties (unless you are a "free" provider). Kind of like how I pay for my telephone service? So you ought to be able to call me for free so long as I want your call? Does AT&T know about this? If your > customers don't want confirmation mail, whether from the FTC's DNC > machinery or some mailing list, then you should not accept it. Well, that's how it's worked. But then again without change that's also the system that let all this massive spam breed. Foolish me I thought we were here to propose CHANGES which might ameliorate the spam problem. If > your customers don't pay you enough to deal with their email including > the FTC's DNC confirmations, then you should either raise your rates > or fire those customers that are too expensive to deal with. And if you don't have time or inclination to deal with all the spam then you should hire a full-time secretary to pre-screen your email so you only see what you want and otherwise just be quiet about it. It's not a problem, you're just too poor. Ah, so easy to throw the other guy's money around! What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo or more, w/o connectivity fees? When is spam a problem? When you have to pay someone full-time to sort through your email or when I'm forced to raise prices to a level which kills the technology just so AT&T can deliver all the mail they want for free? I think a major point of why we are all here is because, in various ways, massive spamming is making e-mail as a technology untenable as conceived. That would include its presumed or at least desireable economics. And who are you to say I should charge my customers more to cover the costs of bulk-mailers? Why not charge THE BULK MAILERS. Doh! You're just advocating for receiver pays. Which is your right. But just so we're all clear. > > .. > > Gak, he's even trying to get free advice on how to get millions of > > dollars worth of free mailing reliably. > > That is not at all what he asked. He only asked how to avoid your > filters that you have installed at the behest of your customers so > that the mail that your customers are paying you to deliver is in > fact delivered to them. Well, not really, he was trying to put as many network operators on notice to try to let his stuff through. But if you want to fly into wherever his office is and have a sit down with him explaining what he needs to do, research potential problems, and write it all up in a nice report for them to use as a set of guidelines and even take responsibility for your recommendations all at your own expense why Vernon by all means go for it! The point is: Stop being willfully ignorant. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 20:43:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29087 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R0hL817041 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:43:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhKj-0004Qm-Dn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:43:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29079; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhKh-0007ZA-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:43:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhKb-0007YQ-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:43:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhJR-0004An-23; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhIQ-00048J-S7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:40:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29031 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhIO-0007Y5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:40:56 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhID-0007Xz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:40:45 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R0ee2x016262 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:40:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270040.h5R0ee2x016262@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch References: <16123.36063.107676.763852@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:40:40 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > > That's still nonsense. > > Why thank you for the collegial consideration! You're welcome. I really think that on alternate Thursdays you try to solve spam from the perspective of an AOL with 80,000,000 eyeballs to rent to the highest bidder. That's a fine model from some perspectives, but not mine. > ... > Well, that's how it's worked. > > But then again without change that's also the system that let all this > massive spam breed. > > Foolish me I thought we were here to propose CHANGES which might > ameliorate the spam problem. I think switching to sender pays is impossible, even if it were desirable or practical with some other history. Except in the perverted cases where big advertisers pay big sellers of "eyes," there are insurmountable practical problems in authorization, authentication, and general accounting. Sender pays for email makes just as much sense as sender-pays-per-IP-packet, which about 15 years after it was first pushed, makes even less sense. (Yes, I've heard of peering fees and approximations to "settlements".) > If > > your customers don't pay you enough to deal with their email including > > the FTC's DNC confirmations, then you should either raise your rates > > or fire those customers that are too expensive to deal with. > > And if you don't have time or inclination to deal with all the spam > then you should hire a full-time secretary to pre-screen your email so > you only see what you want and otherwise just be quiet about it. It's > not a problem, you're just too poor. Plenty of spam is sent in my direction, thank you very much. Like everyone else, I deal with it. > Ah, so easy to throw the other guy's money around! Yes, but what you're doing is something else and worse. You're demanding a cut of other people's action because you're apparently unwilling or unable to charge your customers whatever your serivces cost. > What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo > or more, w/o connectivity fees? The email will end. Fortunately, we both know that such a number is silly nonsense. > When is spam a problem? When you have to pay someone full-time to sort > through your email or when I'm forced to raise prices to a level which > kills the technology just so AT&T can deliver all the mail they want > for free? Those would be bad events. It would also be bad if a large astroid landed in the Atlantic. Fortunately, both are very unlikely events. > I think a major point of why we are all here is because, in various > ways, massive spamming is making e-mail as a technology untenable as > conceived. That would include its presumed or at least desireable > economics. > > And who are you to say I should charge my customers more to cover the > costs of bulk-mailers? Why not charge THE BULK MAILERS. Doh! Because it is impractical to charge the mailers that cause problems. > You're just advocating for receiver pays. > Which is your right. > But just so we're all clear. Receiver pays is what we have. It's not perfect, but until you raise the cost of email to at least the cost of U.S.P.S. junk mail, it's the only possible system. > ... > The point is: Stop being willfully ignorant. That's good advice. Concerning sender-pays: - who runs the machinery to collect the fees and how much does that entity charge? - who gets how much of the fees? - how do you prevent abuses such as signing up for the FTC's DNC 1000 times only to collect the fee? - how do you keep the fee low enough to not kill the utility of email that you are trying to preseve against the ravages of spam? - how do you get people to give up the original point-to-point data protocol? The RIAA hasn't had a lot of success against "file sharing." There are facile answers for all of those issues. I think any real answer to all of them simultaneously is indistinguishable from extending the U.S. Postal Service's monopoly on paper mail to email, complete with $0.50/message "e-postage." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 20:52:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29347 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R0qBN22388 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhTH-0005p1-Cw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29320; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhTF-0007dL-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhT9-0007dI-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhT7-0005mb-DF; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhSa-0005m8-RP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29270 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhSY-0007cW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:26 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhSN-0007c9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:51:15 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5R0fCEb026129; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:41:12 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10985; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:40:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.37521.911157.950706@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <200306270013.h5R0D5mA013802@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <16123.33628.26016.673750@world.std.com> <200306270013.h5R0D5mA013802@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:40:49 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok Vernon, you've made your point. You are in favor of the current "recipient pays" model for bulk email etc. We disagree. I think bulk mailers should pay their freight. I just would like to point out that not going along with your "recipient-pays" scheme is hardly nonsense, as you assert. Next time try to use facts and reasoning to back up your point of view rather than insults. I realize sometimes it's satisfying to convince oneself that not only do they disagree, but the other person is a fool for not seeing it your way. Well, whatever floats your self-esteem. To be honest, I find your point of view, that the consumer will pay whatever it takes to receive all the bulk mail anyone can justify sending him or her, to be in a word: Nonsense. But we're both free to have our differing opinions nonetheless. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* On June 26, 2003 at 18:13 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > From: Barry Shein > > > ... > > > The no-call list specifically is used by consumers such as YOUR ISP > > > subscribers who PAY you. They are soliciting this information by signing up > > > on the FTC's website. > > > > So by your reasoning because most people pay for their telephone > > service then AT&T should allow the FTC to just make millions of free > > phone calls to them all over the country (or world) to deliver these > > confirmations. > > ... > > That's a nonsense analogy. You're like a cell phone carrier instead > of a long distance carrier. Like a U.S. cell phone carrier, your > paying customer is the recipient of the message. Cell phone carriers > don't whine when their customers burn all of their minutes on phone-sex > or even on frauds routed to island nations. Instead they raise rates > or cancel customer accounts. If your customers are receiving too much > mail of any sort including spam for what they pay you, then you should > either raise your rates or terminate their accounts. > > No matter how much you'd like a piece of AT&T's pie or a cut of the > action of any third party that sends content to your customers by > SMTP, HTTP, or any other IP protocol, you have no reasonable claim, > at least not unless you make a private deal AOL and others. If you > don't have AOL's clout to get other big outfits to pay for your > customer's "eyes," then you have my sympathy, but only a little. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 20:54:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29438 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R0sAE23886 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhVC-0006DB-Jb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29426; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhVA-0007ei-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhV4-0007ef-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhV2-00066g-Vx; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:54:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhUk-00062v-Lb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:53:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29417 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhUi-0007eG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:53:40 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhUX-0007e8-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:53:29 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R0rOl1017594 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:53:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270053.h5R0rOl1017594@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: <16123.33096.155023.148156@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:53:24 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > If we can conclude that MILLIONS of PCs are PURPOSELY being infected > by viruses designed to turn them into spam delivery robots...then > there's nothing we can do? > > Sure we can, for starters we can alert all interested parties that > this is underlying the spam problem and more importantly agree that > this is the real problem. That's reasonable, but I doubt it will have much effect. Those who would have to change their behavior would have to do the same things that they need to do fix far more serious effects of viruses than spam. The use of Microsoft software is not a technical problem. > ... > You've all got to stop thinking like end-users who can only see the > ... > If every phone in NYC suddenly rang at the same time (or as many as is > possible) and the voice on the line said "BUY BLAMMO COLA!" would you > say the problem was that you and 8 million others received an ad for > Blammo Cola you didn't want or that SOMEONE HAS MANAGED TO RING 8 > MILLION PHONES SIMULTANEOUSLY and what sort of breach of the phone > system does that represent? I like that way of stating the issue. > Let's start by trying to get to the truth of the matter, rather than > trying to define the underlying cause only in terms of the > implementation problem we find attractive or easy. That's also very good advice. Let's start by admitting that the outcome of research is often not pleasing. That we want a (probably technical, given the context) spam solution does not imply that one exists. Then let's admit the problems in all proposed technical solutions: - challenge/response: many people refuse to respond. Spammers can hire cheap labor to answer challenges to innocuous messages like "Are you my long lost friend?" and then use the challenged sender address to spew 50 valuable messages before the whitelist entry is removed. - whitelisting: as you said, user's are lazy and stupid. - sender-pays: who collects the money? Who gets it? How do you keep it all honest and cheap enough without destroying the village (email) to save it? - authentication: knowing that Verisign has sold a mail sender a $10 certificate cannot tell you whether copies of an incoming mail message are being sent to 30,000,000 of your intimate friends. - etc. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:07:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29677 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R179730195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhhl-0007qw-NF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29669; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhhj-0007i9-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhhd-0007i6-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhhd-0007mV-6a; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhhJ-0007m0-1E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:06:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29664 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhhG-0007i2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:06:38 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhh4-0007hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:06:27 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R16LZV020830 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:06:21 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270106.h5R16LZV020830@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch References: <16123.37521.911157.950706@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:06:21 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > You are in favor of the current "recipient pays" model for bulk email > etc. > > We disagree. I think bulk mailers should pay their freight. > > I just would like to point out that not going along with your > "recipient-pays" scheme is hardly nonsense, as you assert. > > Next time try to use facts and reasoning to back up your point of view > rather than insults. I realize sometimes it's satisfying to convince > oneself that not only do they disagree, but the other person is a fool > for not seeing it your way. Well, whatever floats your self-esteem. > > To be honest, I find your point of view, that the consumer will pay > whatever it takes to receive all the bulk mail anyone can justify > sending him or her, to be in a word: Nonsense. It's a good thing that's not my point of view, although my view may still be nonsense. I think consumers will and must pay whatever it takes to receive the mail they want (bulk or not) and not receive the rest. That means that customers will variously choose to pay to - have filters run on their behalf, - buy software that implements challenge-response mechanisms, - use whitelists that make their mailboxes private and unreachable even to real long lost friends, - have their congresscritters write laws that reduce spam somewhat. Some consumers will even pay their "eyeballs" to free and almost free providers. That's the only possible real world implementation of sender-pays. From outside, Hotmail is already in the business of filtering unwanted junk advertising except that which Hotmail has been paid to deliver. Perhaps I'm being silly, but I doubt you'd take world.std.com in that direction. If I'm wrong, I think there will always be ISPs that don't go that way. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:08:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29703 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R186o31673 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhig-0008Em-Oo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29696; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhie-0007iO-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhiY-0007iL-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhia-00087v-94; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhiK-00084C-Hi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29676 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhi3-0007iF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:27 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.attbi.com ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhhs-0007hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:16 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003062701062601100ohf9ne>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:06:27 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] Economic model is borken. (sic.) Let's fix it Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030623121454.03989638@cmserver.computer.net> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <9384C2DE-A83B-11D7-9731-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:06:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 12:16 PM, David Jameson wrote: > Dead right - we have been saying this for a long time - if you don't > want to bother registering ONCE to get your message through, you have > decided that your message is just not that important. Either that, or I've decided that *you* just aren't that important. That is, not important enough to risk getting added to more spam mailing lists. mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:09:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29736 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R197G32163 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhjf-0008Mg-CT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29726; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhjc-0007ip-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhjX-0007im-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhjY-0008FR-Tv; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhil-0008F4-NO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29701 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhij-0007iR-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:08:09 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhiX-0007iI-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:07:58 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Cc: Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16123.33096.155023.148156@world.std.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:04:58 -0400 At 07:27 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 26, 2003 at 11:13 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > > Well, this raises an interesting issue that I mentioned before - if a > virus > > takes over someone's email client, lets say Outlook, and starts sending > > spam from that person's account which is legit, there isn't much we > can do. > >Wait a minute, let's restate that a little more accurately: > >If we can conclude that MILLIONS of PCs are PURPOSELY being infected >by viruses designed to turn them into spam delivery robots...then >there's nothing we can do? > >Sure we can, for starters we can alert all interested parties that >this is underlying the spam problem and more importantly agree that >this is the real problem. > >It's not the message, it's the amplification. > >And the amplification is being obtained criminally and massively. > >And it's only through this illegally obtained amplification is spam >the problem we see. > >You've all got to stop thinking like end-users who can only see the >message on your screen and start thinking like network engineers and >ask questions like how the heck did some two-bit punk just send 100M >get rich quick spams from hundreds of different IP addresses? > >And, further, would this really be much of a problem if they couldn't >do exactly that? Could Joe Chickenboner and his 386 on a 56k dialup >really send out 100M msgs from that one machine before being shut down >or at least blocked by 95% of the net? I don't think so. >[..] In your opinion, isn't spam considering a specific case of a network abuse problem? Why is the spam problem any different from lets say a BBS user dialing in every moment and giving all other BBS users a busy signal. OR lets say in a shared-Unix system, a user grabbing too much disk space leaving not much for anyone else. In both cases, there were mechanisms in place to catch the wrongdoers and enforce the rules. The problem with the Internet is as many people have mentioned, is that it is an open system, written by people no expecting abuse - by people who trusted each user on the network to do the right thing. As far as I understand you, what you and Eric Brunner are trying to bring to everyone's attention, is the need for similar controls on the Internet so massive network abuse can be detected early and stopped. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:10:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29764 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R1A7G32675 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhkd-0008Uw-EJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29757; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhka-0007jL-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhkV-0007jI-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhkW-0008Nk-S0; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:10:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhkK-0008NC-I7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29752 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhkI-0007j9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:46 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhk5-0007j5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:09:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Jon Kyme" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Cc: "ASRG" In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:58:24 -0400 At 12:43 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based system as > > per > > charter: > > > > > > >Point 1 is kindof axiomatic. >Point 6 is probably a "good thing". >2-5 are interesting if you believe that consent is limited to >cases where a receiver consents to any message from a listed (possibly >authenticated) sender. . > >I don't believe that this adds up to what you claim. > >There was some more fundamental (but probably premature) >discussion of "consent" early in the life this group. The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's HTML blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. If discussion of consent is premature at the moment, what should we be looking at right now? In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the moment? As it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions about everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:14:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29834 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R1E9801205 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhoX-0000JM-EA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29819; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhoU-0007kg-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhoP-0007kd-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhoP-0000CZ-Js; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhng-0000AF-RO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:13:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29808 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhnP-0007kO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:12:59 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.attbi.com ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhnE-0007jq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:12:48 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[66.31.45.164](untrusted sender)) by attbi.com (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20030627011159012004mfeoe>; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:11:59 +0000 X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mathew In-Reply-To: <16119.49074.85670.610396@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Image-Url: http://meta.ATH0.com/photos/MailPictures/meta@pobox.com Message-Id: <5988F130-A83C-11D7-9731-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:11:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 11:04 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > So why does Microsoft continue to provide opportunity for spammers > unnecessarily? Maybe there's a clue in recent news headlines... Microsoft aims to offer anti-virus products, services BY REUTERS [Seattle | Reuters News Service, 11 June 2003] - Microsoft will acquire anti-virus technology from GeCAD Software, a Romanian software company, to develop its own software to protect users against malicious software programs, the world's largest software-maker said yesterday [...] mathew _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:25:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00064 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R1PAF06450 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhzC-0001fx-Hu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00053; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhz9-000004-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhz4-0007np-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vhz3-0001Vj-I0; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VhyD-0001Iz-0N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00036 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VhyA-0007nY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:24:06 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vhxy-0007nV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:23:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626211918.00b41768@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - An IP Whitelist Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:23:28 -0400 Just ran across a SlashDot story (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/06/24/2148248.shtml) announcing a website (http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/) which acts as a whitelist of IPs of businesses that promise not to send spam. From the front page: "We offer an alternative to simply watching and waiting for the eventual extinction of the Internet. We offer a list of IP Addresses for businesses that abide by Accepted Standards of Conduct for the Online Business and Accepted Best Practices Online Email Marketing. " From their charter (http://www.the-carrot-and-the-stick.com/charter/): --snip-- Our mission is, simply put. To keep email a viable tool for one to one communication between individuals and businesses, individuals and individuals and finally between businesses to businesses. We will accomplish this daunting task by understanding just how important email is to the World Wide Web. Electronic Mail is the lifeblood of the World Wide Web. Currently this lifeblood is plagued by the disease of spam almost to where we can see the point of extinction of the Internet as we now know it in the not to distant future. The Carrot and the Stick Inc., brings together a variety of talented individuals to keep Electronic Mail a usable method of communication for both the Business Community and the Home User. The Carrot and the Stick Inc., will provide the needed parameters for the Bulk Mail Industry to follow by defining what spam is and what is more important. What is not spam by outlining Best Practices for the bulk mail industry. By doing this we will help the Bulk Mail Industry to be more profitable while making the overall online experience for the end user more enjoyable. The Carrot, if you will is a list of Internet Protocol Addresses assigned to Bulk Mail Operators, Internet Service Providers and the General Business Community that adhere to the accepted Internet Standards for mailing list management. These standards have been the accepted Best Practices for list management for the last six or seven years. Further, these members will follow our standards for online business conduct. These standards have been a part of the RFC standards for a very long time. Their inclusion into the white list will allow legitimate Bulk Mail Operators to send their communications unimpeded to their list of subscribers. If for some reason their communications are refused The Carrot and the Stick Inc., will mediate between the sender and the recipient's provider to find out what the problem is. This will provide a venue for the sender and the Service Provider to facilitate a remedy for this situation. This is something that is not currently available on any sort of large scale. The obvious direct affect of a Provider using this white list will be their ability to be more aggressive in their filtering with far fewer false positives. While this will not directly affect the volume of spam being sent this will directly affect the volume of spam being received by the end user. This will be a very important selling point to any Internet Service Provider. In using, the same technique used to create and distribute a Black List you ensure the technology is already in place. The Internet Protocol Address of a Bulk Mail Operator can not be forged or otherwise altered to benefit unscrupulous individuals or to implicate the Bulk Mail Operator. These are usually static and there fore a very good way to ensure delivery of Electronic Mail. The use of a White listing of Internet Protocol Addresses will preclude the possibility of fraud and/or forgery. This type of white listing is preferable to the of adding to the X-headers some riddle or sending mail through our servers instead of their own server. This would also mean the Bulk Mailer would not be limited to just the one mailing. Instead, because all their Internet Protocol Addresses are white listed means they can contact their list at any given time. The Stick, if you will be a Black Listing of their Internet Protocol Addresses and legal action for damage to reputation for only those that abuse the White List by using it to spam. This should discourage abuse by any intelligent individuals. ---snip--- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:54:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00632 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R1sCS14371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViRI-0003ji-S7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00620; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViRF-0000AD-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViRA-0000AA-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViR7-0003f7-Ld; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViQp-0003et-5S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:53:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00610 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViQm-00009t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:53:40 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViQb-00009Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:53:29 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5R1qqtD005313; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:52:52 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25311; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:52:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.41844.4302.544562@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <200306270040.h5R0ee2x016262@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <16123.36063.107676.763852@world.std.com> <200306270040.h5R0ee2x016262@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:52:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 18:40 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > From: Barry Shein > > What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo > > or more, w/o connectivity fees? > > The email will end. Fortunately, we both know that such a number is > silly nonsense. Let's see. I've been president & CEO of an ISP since 1989. Are you sure you want to dismiss my comments about the costs of the email business as nonsense off-hand? Maybe you don't understand to what exent email is being subsidized by other revenue streams and how that subsidy is becoming unbearable mostly due to the personnel strain being created by spam. Email is and has been the killer app of the net (in more ways than one.) Now what happens when something gets people through the door? It becomes a loss leader, you charge as little as possible in the hope that once inside they may buy more profitable goods and services. Well, it's a little more complicated than that but you'd have to pay me the big bucks to explain it fully. But unless you work the spreadsheets for a living don't be too sure that you can extrapolate from what it takes to set-up sendmail and pop on a linux pc for a few people to what it takes to run a professional organization with service and customer support staff etc for many thousands of people. Remember Brooks' constant carping about the N! nature of organizational endeavors. > Because it is impractical to charge the mailers that cause problems. Why? Because you can't think of a way to do it off the top of your head? But you can't think of a way to stop spam by any other means off the top of your head either. Neither can anyone else, apparently. Which is the justification for a research group. To try to tackle problems which don't have obvious answers. I wouldn't necessarily start with a sender-pays business plan as a problem to solve here, maybe later, but I've seen some which are quite plausible and nothing like what usually gets suggested by people who aren't in the business of creating new business models. But I bring it up because I think it's a reality we're going to have to face, like it or not. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 21:56:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00724 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R1u8x15239 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViTA-0003xi-PP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00707; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViT7-0000BY-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViT2-0000BV-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViT3-0003qn-Cf; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViSl-0003qP-96 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:55:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00682 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViSi-0000Au-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:55:40 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViSW-0000Aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:55:29 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R1stw9025556 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270154.h5R1stw9025556@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Why sender-pays is nonsense except in the Hotmail model Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:54:55 -0600 (MDT) This FTC business is an excellent case study of why sender-pays makes sense only in the restricted sense of Hotmail's model (if there). Imagine that there were a bulk-sender-pays system in place. Assume that all of what I claim are insurmountable problems are somehow resolved. Now comes the FTC commission with an anticipated mailing of 250,000,000 mesages. Barry says "None of my users will receive those confirmation messages unless you pay me to deliver them." The FTC says, "Ok, none of your users will receive their confirmation messages. You might want to let them know that as a consequence their world.std.com addresses will not be entered on the FTC's do not spam list, but if not, that's ok too." I don't know how Barry might respond, but I suspect that many of his customers would not be pleased and will switch to an ISP that does not participate in the bulk-mail-sender-settlements system. Variations of that story fit every other case where the bulk mail is wanted, whether FTC DNS confirmations, CNN "news alerts," or dirty pictures. The only cases where Barry can get his own customers to go along with a bland refusal of bulk senders to pay is when the mail is unwanted by his customers. Thus, all providers of solicited or non-spam bulk mail will blandly refuse to join the sender-pays party. Sender-pays devolves into senders paying to have unwanted mail delivered. On the plausible side of the spectrum, we have advertising pushed on AOL and Hotmail users. At the other end, we have the silly notion of spammers being voluntarily paying. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:10:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01084 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R2AAl23285 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vigk-00063U-OF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01069; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vigh-0000Ft-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vigb-0000Fq-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vigb-0005tK-QG; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vifk-0005sT-06 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:09:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01045 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vifg-0000FJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:09:05 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VifW-0000FG-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:08:54 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5R28mtD026552; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:08:48 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28523; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:08:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.42800.238853.783679@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: <200306270053.h5R0rOl1017594@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <16123.33096.155023.148156@world.std.com> <200306270053.h5R0rOl1017594@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:08:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 18:53 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > From: Barry Shein > > > ... > > If we can conclude that MILLIONS of PCs are PURPOSELY being infected > > by viruses designed to turn them into spam delivery robots...then > > there's nothing we can do? > > > > Sure we can, for starters we can alert all interested parties that > > this is underlying the spam problem and more importantly agree that > > this is the real problem. > > That's reasonable, but I doubt it will have much effect. Look, it's taken weeks of my harping on the point to even begin to get it taken seriously in this group of people who claim some expertise in network engineering and related and spend time thinking about the problem. Not surprisingly (to me), there's this kind of denial and insistance on thinking about spam only in terms of the spam on one's screen rather than as a network wide security phenomena. How far along that path do you think legislators who are architecting anti-spam bills or various regulatory and enforcement agency managers trying to decide how best to allocate some budget to spam-fighting (e.g., FTC, FCC, etc) are on this? What if, as I mostly claim, they all have it wrong from the get-go and the nut of the problem really is the amplification and how it's acheived and not the rather limited event of seeing a spam message in your mailbox? Legislators, from what I've seen, are treating this problem mostly as if Kellog's or Publisher's Clearing House are getting a little frisky with the send button and need to be reeled in a little with some rules on fair play like opt-in and clearly identifying a msg. But what might be closer to the truth is we have rather organized, hardened, and cynical criminals causing the spam plague, many of whom have already proven themselves beyond the reach of civil law and probably any regulatory law that doesn't involve coming to them and putting them in irons and locking them away for a long time. So why bother with all this "put [ADV] in the Subject" and "you should include a removal address which actually works" when what we're dealing with here is something closer in nature to a blossoming Medellin drug cartel? And who might change this? Someone screaming from the roof of the building? Not likely. Or a group such as this issuing a statement (whatever form it should take) that we've looked into this as a group of network engineers and have concluded the real problem is not what's been popularized up until now but, rather, should be viewed as this: (It's the Amplification, Stupid, in more words)? That's why I think it's important that we try to look at the problem with an eye towards really characterizing what the problem is rather than just accepting blindly that the problem is that little billy or sue just got a pornographic message how do we block that from happening again? > > If every phone in NYC suddenly rang at the same time (or as many as is > > possible) and the voice on the line said "BUY BLAMMO COLA!" would you > > say the problem was that you and 8 million others received an ad for > > Blammo Cola you didn't want or that SOMEONE HAS MANAGED TO RING 8 > > MILLION PHONES SIMULTANEOUSLY and what sort of breach of the phone > > system does that represent? > > I like that way of stating the issue. Ok, then I'll repeat it and leave it there for now. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:16:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01259 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R2G8a26894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VimW-0006zh-1w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01226; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VimS-0000Hv-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VimN-0000Hs-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:15:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VimP-0006mr-A8; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VilC-0006fq-4I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:15:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01200 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vil9-0000HF-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:14:43 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Viky-0000HB-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:14:32 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5R2DelX003545; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:13:40 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29451; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:13:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16123.43091.763213.273289@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:13:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 21:04 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > In your opinion, isn't spam considering a specific case of a network abuse > problem? Why is the spam problem any different from lets say a BBS user > dialing in every moment and giving all other BBS users a busy signal. OR > lets say in a shared-Unix system, a user grabbing too much disk space > leaving not much for anyone else. Scope. Ringing your phone over and over is annoying as hell. Ringing every phone in the city over and over is evidence of a massive security breach. Any idiot can ring one (or a few) phones over and over. But once someone has acquired the technological savvy to ring millions of phones and no one can stop them we're in a whole different ball park. Telling people to unhook the bell on their phone (boy I must be old to even think of that) doesn't quite address the latter issue. > In both cases, there were mechanisms in place to catch the wrongdoers and > enforce the rules. The problem with the Internet is as many people have > mentioned, is that it is an open system, written by people no expecting > abuse - by people who trusted each user on the network to do the right > thing. As far as I understand you, what you and Eric Brunner are trying to > bring to everyone's attention, is the need for similar controls on the > Internet so massive network abuse can be detected early and stopped. I think we need to begin to recognize the problem for what it actually is. A massive security breach which no doubt violates many extent laws and not just some obnoxious behavior which needs to be curbed by smartening things up a little. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:18:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01307 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R2I7c28492 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:18:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VioR-0007PT-NW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:18:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01300; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VioO-0000Ih-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:18:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VioI-0000Ie-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:17:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VioL-0007CW-1Q; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vinc-0007CA-Ke for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:17:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01279 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VinZ-0000IV-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:17:13 -0400 Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VinN-0000IQ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:17:02 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626221605.00b3e2e8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , Vernon Schryver From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:16:05 -0400 At 10:08 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >On June 26, 2003 at 18:53 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > > From: Barry Shein > > > > > ... > > > If we can conclude that MILLIONS of PCs are PURPOSELY being infected > > > by viruses designed to turn them into spam delivery robots...then > > > there's nothing we can do? > > > > > > Sure we can, for starters we can alert all interested parties that > > > this is underlying the spam problem and more importantly agree that > > > this is the real problem. > > > > That's reasonable, but I doubt it will have much effect. > >Look, it's taken weeks of my harping on the point to even begin to get >it taken seriously in this group of people who claim some expertise in >network engineering and related and spend time thinking about the >problem. > >Not surprisingly (to me), there's this kind of denial and insistance >on thinking about spam only in terms of the spam on one's screen >rather than as a network wide security phenomena. >[..] It is a problem of network abuse - trusted users abusing the system. The problem is that on the Internet every host is trusted. Are you suggesting that we should be looking at ways to make sure that the underlying network would capable to detecting such abuse and stopping it? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:29:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01489 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R2TDh32413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VizB-0008Qi-Rn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01480; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Viz8-0000LR-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Viz2-0000LM-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Viyz-0008NO-9Q; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ViyQ-0008N1-DZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:28:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01457 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViyM-0000Kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:28:22 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ViyB-0000Kt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:28:11 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R2Rvki001126 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:27:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270227.h5R2Rvki001126@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch References: <16123.41844.4302.544562@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:27:57 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > > > What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo > > > or more, w/o connectivity fees? > > > > The email will end. Fortunately, we both know that such a number is > > silly nonsense. > > Let's see. I've been president & CEO of an ISP since 1989. > > Are you sure you want to dismiss my comments about the costs of the > email business as nonsense off-hand? Yes, because I've been using email for 35 years since 1968. I've been continuously running sendmail servers that deal with my own mail since 1986, and have run SMTP servers for years that handled 200K msgs/day for 10K users. I know that it does not take $100/user/month to provide email with or without spam filtering. I suspect others know as much. > ... > Maybe you don't understand to what exent email is being subsidized by > other revenue streams and how that subsidy is becoming unbearable > mostly due to the personnel strain being created by spam. I'd be very happy to hear an accounting of those costs, but not insulting hyperbole of $100/month/user. > ... > Well, it's a little more complicated than that but you'd have to pay > me the big bucks to explain it fully. > > But unless you work the spreadsheets for a living don't be too sure > that you can extrapolate from what it takes to set-up sendmail and pop > on a linux pc for a few people to what it takes to run a professional > organization with service and customer support staff etc for many > thousands of people. Remember Brooks' constant carping about the N! > nature of organizational endeavors. So you're saying that ISP services costs AOL and Earthlink $100/month/user for SMTP plus whatever petty change is needed for HTTP and they're making up the difference between $100/month and $10-30/month in volume? . You're also saying that providing mail for the current ~500,000,000 users is costing the world economy $600B/year? sheesh...No one disputes that spam is expsensive, but statements like $100/month/user are noise that hides your message. > > Because it is impractical to charge the mailers that cause problems. > > Why? Because you can't think of a way to do it off the top of your > head? Because it has insurmountable transition and operational problems. > But you can't think of a way to stop spam by any other means off the > top of your head either. Neither can anyone else, apparently. > > Which is the justification for a research group. To try to tackle > problems which don't have obvious answers. Research includes being open to not finding a nice answer. > I wouldn't necessarily start with a sender-pays business plan as a > problem to solve here, maybe later, but I've seen some which are quite > plausible and nothing like what usually gets suggested by people who > aren't in the business of creating new business models. > > But I bring it up because I think it's a reality we're going to have > to face, like it or not. If you'd stop the hyperbole, you might find that I agree a version of sender pays will occur. I predict (not because I like the idea) that governments will impose a $0.001 to $0.10/target tax or fee on commercial bulk email. They'll make the failure to pay that fee a major criminal offense like failing to pay other taxes. They'll follow the money and jail both the spam service bureaus and their customers, but mostly the customers because they're easier to find. Much of the proceeds will go where government fees always go, but some will to ISPs in the name of closing the digital divide, providing universal service, improving education, and stopping child pornography, terrorism, and drugs. Non-bulk mail and non-commercial bulk mail, including stuff such as the FTC mailings and messages from politicians will not be taxed. The Direct Marketing Association will be pleased because the cost of spam will high enough that reasonable percentage margins will let Topica, Roving Software, et al survive, and because the viagra work at home dirty picture spammers will be out of business. ISPs will be glad to get a cut of the fees. Bill Gates will be especially pleased. Users will not be pleased because they'll still be getting 10-20 spam/day, albeit of higher quality. There will be endless court cases over whether particular spews are commercial. Many completely legitimate bulk mail senders will shut down rather than risk running afoul of the tax man. Some will switch to NNTP or HTTP to deliver their current content. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:45:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01799 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R2jCS06280 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjEd-0001dD-T0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01788; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjEa-0000Pu-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjEU-0000Pr-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjEU-0001Xk-3p; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjDx-0001X6-59 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:44:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01776 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjDt-0000PZ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:44:25 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjDi-0000PW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:44:14 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R2i5Lg002912 for Asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:44:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270244.h5R2i5Lg002912@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: <16123.42800.238853.783679@world.std.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:44:05 -0600 (MDT) > From: Barry Shein > ... > > > If we can conclude that MILLIONS of PCs are PURPOSELY being infected > > > by viruses designed to turn them into spam delivery robots...then > > > there's nothing we can do? > > > > > > Sure we can, for starters we can alert all interested parties that > > > this is underlying the spam problem and more importantly agree that > > > this is the real problem. > Look, it's taken weeks of my harping on the point to even begin to get > it taken seriously in this group of people who claim some expertise in > network engineering and related and spend time thinking about the > problem. No, those who agreed with you before you said it still agree while the others have been beaten into silence but not agreement. Those who perceive no alternative to using insecure-by-design systems will never be convinced until you provide the applications they want on some other platform. There are 10's of 1000's of people working hard in courts and in coding sweat shops to stop you or at least keep ahead the alternatives. The bit about the Romanian virus filter vendor is part of that. > ... > What if, as I mostly claim, they all have it wrong from the get-go and > the nut of the problem really is the amplification and how it's > acheived and not the rather limited event of seeing a spam message in > your mailbox? You'll not get much argument about that from anyone who might ever agree with it. > ... > But what might be closer to the truth is we have rather organized, > hardened, and cynical criminals causing the spam plague, many of whom > have already proven themselves beyond the reach of civil law and > probably any regulatory law that doesn't involve coming to them and > putting them in irons and locking them away for a long time. Again, you're preaching to the choir. However, I predict there will be laws that will put enough of the current spammers in irons to make SMTP push advertising safe for the Fortune 500,000. The recent Congressional talk of criminal penalties is the start of that. > ... > Or a group such as this issuing a statement ... Which would have even less effect than pointing out the evils of HTML-by-default. Most people wouldn't mind losing HTML mail except in special circumstances but they'll all scream about switching to safer systems...or at least lobbiests will make it seem as if they're all screaming. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 22:55:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02078 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R2tBr07694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjOJ-000201-Mm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02070; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjOG-0000U2-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjOA-0000Tz-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjO8-0001y8-Vh; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjNN-0001xf-M3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:54:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02067 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjN5-0000Ts-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:53:55 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjMu-0000Tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:53:44 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A1DF89300FE; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:54:23 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:58:24 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Update of IPR document thread-index: AcM8JwJVk4Jk02s9QHu4PwO6reSzFQAMEKUQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] RE: Update of IPR document Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:54:16 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov, you and others on this group that are cranking out documents for us to review deserve our deep appreciation.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:05 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org; bob@wyman.us; Peter Kay > Subject: Update of IPR document >=20 >=20 > The IPR document has been updated, it can be found at: >=20 > http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html >=20 > The following items were updated: > June 14th, 2003 / Added ASRG Official IPR Policy > June 26th, 2003 / Added IPR disclosure for TitanKey; added a=20 > new patent for C/R >=20 > Yakov >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------- > Yakov Shafranovich / > SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------- > "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps=20 > his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------- =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:05:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02336 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R35Cl12112 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjY0-00039H-9Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02313; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjXw-0000XX-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjXr-0000XT-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjXp-0002zI-GR; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VjXW-0002sb-WC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:04:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02295 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjXE-0000X7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:04:24 -0400 Received: from [216.17.129.186] (helo=magma.aster.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VjX3-0000X4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:04:13 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by magma.aster.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) id h5R33vUs011312 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:03:57 -0600 Received: from mica.aster.com (216.17.155.226) by aster.com via pn_asd id ASDkuiRj5; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:03:55 -0600 Message-ID: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.com> From: Bill Thorson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:03:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ASRG Group, I've been working on smtp server software and have noticed something very strange. We seem to have many connections made, mostly at night, who connect to port 25 and then disconnect right after the 220 Server Ready message. I was believing that I had a bug in my software but now I am wondering if this is a bot of some type. Do spammers run bots to search for and create lists of mail servers to attack? Is this what I'm seeing? Bill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:48:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03578 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R3mDK32625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkDd-0008U8-C5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03564; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkDb-0000rM-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkDV-0000rJ-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkDQ-0008If-T5; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkCq-0008Ga-Nl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:47:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03541 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkCo-0000r1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:47:22 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkCc-0000qn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:47:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626234630.00bbae80@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Bill Thorson , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:46:32 -0400 At 09:03 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Bill Thorson wrote: >ASRG Group, > >I've been working on smtp server software and have >noticed something very strange. We seem to have many >connections made, mostly at night, who connect to >port 25 and then disconnect right after the >220 Server Ready message. I was believing that I >had a bug in my software but now I am wondering if >this is a bot of some type. Do spammers run bots >to search for and create lists of mail servers to >attack? Is this what I'm seeing? > >Bill It also could be a survey like the one DJ Berstein runs (http://cr.yp.to/surveys.html). Can you provide some more information, like source IPs, etc. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:54:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03692 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R3sAo02519 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkJO-0000eY-00 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03680; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkJL-0000tH-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkJF-0000tD-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkJF-0000YR-7P; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkIQ-0000Y0-Q2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03670 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkIO-0000t0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:08 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkID-0000so-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:52:57 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id AFD29E800F2; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:53:54 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:57:54 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <28b6d3a5-454c-47ca-bd3f-f16fac911a3f> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consent Proposal thread-index: AcM8KZ2UwYMM3kR+TI6FRRIpmX/GFAANKXRQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:53:46 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think you've got the beginning of a consent-based framework. I like it. What I'm getting out of this is: A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on MUA or MTA (ISP). B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition, related to the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR to all the other methods mentioned below. C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting w/ the ISP (for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on varying levels of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to blacklist it.=20 To me, this reinforces what I've seen over the past few months on this group: 1. no one can agree what spam is. So at the end of the day, the user has to have the power to decide. This is in line w/ the charter. 2. no one technological approach "religion" (i.e. filtering, C/R, etc) is adequate to deal with the general problem of "unwanted email". 3. spammers will change their methods as time goes on, so the architecture must allow for that. In addition, a consent-based framework allows for multiple vendors to participate. If we can create some sort of "email bus" I think it has a lot of potential. Peter Kay President TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >=20 >=20 > I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based=20 > system as per=20 > charter: >=20 > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter=20 > incoming email.=20 > Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, and are not=20 > mandated.=20 > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from=20 > banning all email=20 > not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a=20 > whitelist of trusted=20 > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of=20 > unknown senders.=20 > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to=20 > the bulk folder,=20 > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or=20 > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses=20 > of trusted senders,=20 > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features=20 > such as digital=20 > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such=20 > email from=20 > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the=20 > inbox unless=20 > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon=20 > receiving a=20 > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as=20 > email coming=20 > from known open relays is blocked. > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or=20 > encrypted to=20 > protect privacy. >=20 > Any thoughts? >=20 > Yakov >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:54:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03694 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R3sAP02539 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkJO-0000es-9F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03683; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkJL-0000tK-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkJF-0000tE-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkJF-0000YZ-K5; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkJ0-0000Y9-7K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03675 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkIj-0000t7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:29 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-253-78.ut.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.253.78] helo=mail.azza.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkIU-0000sx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:53:15 -0400 Received: from ([192.168.0.1] helo=azza.com) by mail.azza.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #5) id 19VkHy-0002rn-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:52:42 -0600 Message-ID: <3EFBBFAF.9010400@azza.com> From: Selby Hatch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:53:19 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's > HTML blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. If > discussion of consent is premature at the moment, what should we be > looking at right now? In general, what directions should the group be > pursuing at the moment? As it appears rights now, there are mainly > various discussions about everything under the sun, but no concrete > sense of direction at all. > > Yakov > How can you say that? The entire proposal that I submitted was completely and totally about consent and authentication. I understand that it may not be painless to implement, but I have read no proposal here that would be both effective and painless. I don't like whitelists, blacklists or greylists. They must be constantly maintained by someone. I very much like the idea of a keylist or token list being resident on the incoming mail transfer agent. I like the idea that the key list is maintained by the user with the help of the user agent. I like the idea that the key list or token list represents senders that are allowed to send email, but they don't identify them. There is no privacy issue. I like the idea that there is not a one to one relationship between keys and senders. I like the idea that the exchange of keys between receipients and senders can be somewhat automated by the user agent. I'm posting this again for any who may have missed it. Yes, it's long, but that's because there is a lot of information. Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key (or token) and by sender authentication Contents: I. Introduction II. General Description: III. Detailed information: IV. Technical Description A. Email Extensions for client and servers (user agents and mail transfer agents) B. Sender Authentication V. Questions and Answers I. Introduction This is a proposal to enhance email with the objective of eliminating spam. I am fed up with spam and I spent some time thinking of a solution. I have organized these ideas and written them up. I know there are others also trying to solve this wretched issue and I am not so presumptuous as to assume that this is the only solution or the best solution, just a solution. If there are any good ideas contained herein, please make use of them. This is a general description of how the email extensions would be used from a users perspective. These extensions would be relatively straight forward to implement and could be used across all platforms and by all ISPs. A non-proprietary solution is important for competition. This solution requires no legislation or government intervention. Existing anti-spam legislation could become irrelevant except where it deals with fraud. This solution does not address or care what spam is. It is up to the individual email recipient to decide what is and isn't spam. One man's drug is another man's poison. The incoming email server is only an agent of the recipient. No group or individual is censoring or filtering spam for another. These email extensions create an email system that is totally opt-in. When this solution is implemented, people can close and lock their mailboxes to email from everyone except those from whom they want to receive email. It will be like the lock on your front door. It will be like call blocking on your telephone. No more solicitors. Email can continue to be sent and received without using the proposed email extensions. If one wishes, they may continue to use email as they do now. But if they do so, they will not eliminate spam. It is my belief that people want spam free mailboxes and that they will use the extensions. Throughout this discussion, I use the word client for user agent and server for mail transfer agent. The word key is used to describe a set of characters to identify a sender. The words token and password are close synonyms in this context. II. CHANGES General Description: The email client extensions will work like this: 1. You can lock your mailbox with your email client. 2. Only senders that have a key to your mailbox can send an email into your mailbox. 3. You will create one or more keys for your mailbox and enter them into the email address book entries for the persons you are giving the keys to. A key can be any word, phrase or set of characters that you choose. You only have to create keys one time. You can change them any time you like. 4. You will give (send) the keys to those people, who you want to send email to you. You may give some people the same key and give others different keys. Senders are not only people, but lists and other entities. 5. You will be given (receive) keys from those people, who want to receive email from you. When you receive these keys, you will enter them into the email address book entries for the persons who are giving you the keys. 6. To send email to someone who has given (sent) you a key to their mailbox, you will include that key along with their email address in the composition dialog when you send the email. This key should be in your address book so that it can automatically be supplied by the email client when you enter the email address of the recipient either by typing it or by retrieving it from your address book. 7. When an email addressed to you is received by your email server, the server will compare the key that was sent in the message, with the key(s) for your mailbox. If there is a match, the email is placed into your mailbox. If not, the email will be bounced back to the sender. 8. If a key becomes exposed and compromised, you can change the key. The email client will send the new key to everyone who you specify or who was using the compromised key. If someone is giving out your key, you can find out who that is by giving everyone a different key. 9. If you don't want to receive any more email from a sender, delete the key that they are using. If it is shared by other senders, give them a new key. 10. If you want to send email to someone and you don't have a key for their mailbox, you can request a key. III. Detailed information: The following describes what is required to extend the email system and what is required to send and receive email with the proposed changes. 1. The IETF will create a standard that everyone can, and must adhere to so that all email servers and clients can communicate with each other regardless of who the supplier is. 2. Suppliers of email clients will have to extend their email clients. 3. Suppliers of email servers will have to extend their email servers as well as list servers. Server changes can coincide with client changes. 4. When the new extended email client is made available, you will download it and install it on your PC. 5. You will create 1 or more keys to your mail box. They can be a word or a phrase such as "sunset", "Wall Street", "pickles and quilts forever", "03/15/-0044", "Zzyzx", or "I love you". The keys don't have to be particularly secret, only secure enough to make it difficult for spammers to guess or get them. There will be no defaults supplied by the email client. These keys will be entered into the address book of your email client for the persons you have given them to. This is so that the email client can send the keys to your email server and so that you will know who has which keys in case you need to replace a key. Every address book entry can have two keys: (1) the key to your mailbox that you have sent to the addressee, and (2) the key to the mailbox of the addressee that they have sent to you. 6. Send a key to someone you want to receive email from. When you send a key, enter it into your email address book for the person you are sending it to. You will receive keys from those who want to receive email from you. When you receive a key, enter it into your email address book for the person who sent it to you. If your email client is user friendly, it will enter the key into your address book for you after asking for and receiving your permission. The email client may do this without permission if you have set that option. Each key is associated with an address book entry so that if you decide to change a key for that sender, your email client can send the new key to that person. 7. When your keys have been sent and your ISP notifies you that they have implemented the server changes that support locking your mailbox, you can have your email client lock your mailbox . . . . Your email client will be able to query the server for a list of current keys. Your email client will be able to instruct the server to re-synchronize it's key list with the key list in your email client. 8. To send an email, you will do as you do now. If you have the recipient's mailbox key entered into your address book, your email client will supply the key when you enter the address. Your email client will embed the key in a message header when the message is sent. If not, you will enter the key into a field following the email address when you compose a message. 9. To receive email, you will make sure that those who send you email have a key to your mailbox. This includes bulk emailers like eBay, Yahoo, or Fox News as well as list servers, discussion groups, news groups, and message boards. You may want to use different keys for these types of senders. Keys to mailboxes are only one way. Senders who have a key can put mail in, but only you can read it or take it out. 10. If you want to send an email to someone for whose mail box you don't have a key, you will request a key by clicking on the "request key" entry on a drop down list in your email client. You will enter the email address and your email client will send a key request type of email to the email address you provided. You will also send a key to your mailbox. If one wants someone else's key, they must be willing to give one of their own keys. When the request is received, the recipient may send you a key. They may also reject your request or ignore it. If they do send a key, they can enter your email address and key into their address book, so that a new key can automatically be sent to you if they ever change the key. Any request for a key that has a subject, a message body, or other unnecessary header that could contain a solicitation, will be bounced by the receiving email server and will not placed into the mailbox. 11. It would be nice to allow the subject header in a request key email to be used for identification. But if this is allowed, it will be abused by spammers. It could contain a solicitation message or a web address, a phone number or some other such lure. The only information that will be available in a request key email is the requestor's email address and mailbox key. The recipient's mailbox key will only be sent to the requestor's email address. The only way to receive a mailbox key is for the requestor to provide a valid email address and mailbox key. Even the name portion of the sender's email address could prove to be a problem. It doesn't have to be a valid name and it could contain a lure or a solicitation message. Since it is not necessary for message transmission, perhaps it should be stripped off in the request for key process. The complete email address including the name could be obtained after the initial negotiation. 12. If you send an email to someone and you want a reply, you can include a key to your mailbox. When the recipient replies to your email, their email client will use the key that you sent, to reply to your message. 13. If a sender includes a key to their mailbox, your email client will insert the key into an address book entry if you direct it to. 14. Some sites require you to provide an email address if you register. If you do not want further correspondence beyond 1 day or 1 week, you can create a unique short lived key just for this purpose and use it in the registration. When you no longer wish any correspondence from this site, delete this mailbox key. The email client can make this easy to do. You may create an expiring key and specify how long to keep the key. When the expiration interval or expiration date is reached, the email client and the incoming email server will delete the key at the server. 15. If a sender requests a key to your mailbox and you can't identify the sender, you may want to create a short lived or expiring key. You can then send the key to the requestor and open a dialog. If you want to continue correspondence after the initial negotiation, then retain the key. Otherwise, delete it or let it expire. 16. In the final analysis, if a sender has a key to your mailbox, they can send you an email. If they don't, the most they can do is request a key. You choose whether or not to give them a key and you choose to delete it if, and when, you want to end a correspondence. IV. Technical Description A. Email Extensions for client and servers (user agents and mail transfer agents) The email extensions for "received message control" are implemented using 4 new headers. The new headers are only effective if the email server supports the extension and the mailbox is user-locked. Non-extended email servers will ignore them. This provides backward compatibility. Encryption should not be employed in any extension. It will not be effective as a security measure and it will only create a false sense of security. The headers are described as follows: The To-Mailbox-Key header contains the key to the recipient's mailbox. When the message arrives, the To-Mailbox-key is compared to the list of keys kept by the incoming server for the addressed mailbox. The result of the comparison determines whether the message is stored into the mailbox or whether it is bounced. The From-Mailbox-Key header contains a current key to the sender's mailbox. It would be sent in response to a key request or if the sender wanted to include it for a reply. The New-Mailbox-Key header contains a new key to the sender's mailbox. It would be sent when the sender wants to give someone a new key to their mailbox. The From-Mailbox-Key could be used for verification by having the recipient email client match it to the sender's current key in the address book. An exception could be accepted or overridden by the user. The Request-Mailbox-Key header requests a key to the recipients mailbox. It would be accompanied by a From-Mailbox-Key header that provides the recipient with the requestor's key. Then when the New-Mailbox-Key header is returned, it will be accepted by the requestor's mail server. All messages with a Request-Mailbox-Key are stored into the recipient's mailbox. It is the only type that does not require a To-Mailbox-Key header. No message body may be present; the subject header must not be present or must be blank; the name portion of the to and from email addresses must not be present; no other headers that may contain embedded messages may be present. If so, the request is bounced. The email client and sending server need to take the case of multiple recipients into consideration. The email client will send email address/mailbox key pairs for each recipient. The outgoing email server must ensure that all To-Mailbox- Key headers, except the one for the current outgoing email, are stripped from the message and that only one To-Mailbox-Key header exists in the outgoing message. Forwarded messages should also be stripped of all mailbox keys by the email client, except for the mailbox key of the recipient. The headers must be handled by the email client and the incoming server in such a way that the use of keys is easy for the user. No header should be removed from an email, by an incoming email server, before the recipient receives it. The keys in the headers should be enclosed within a delimiter that is not part of the key so that spaces or other special characters are allowed within a key. The email client would edit keys for validity when they were created. The key length should be limited to some useable length. Perhaps 32, 50, 64 or 120 characters. The key list on the server for a particular mailbox should be a variable length list or file. It should be ordered such that a quick search could be applied to the key list during the comparison process. If the keys are stored as ordered fixed length records, a binary search could be applied. One may want to implement the list as a tree. The implementation is up the server supplier. The number of entries in the list should not be limited from a functional standpoint. From a service standpoint, an ISP may want to allow for a specified number of free keys at no charge and then charge for keys above that number. But with spam gone and no more filtering, they should be able to afford the extra space for key storage. A protocol needs to be defined so that an email client and the incoming email server, where the inbox resides, can communicate the mailbox state and the mailbox key list. B. Sender Authentication Sender authentication should be applied. A header called Sender-Auth or Sender-Verification will be inserted into the message by the sending server. It would consist of a delimited string containing the IP address, server identification, and a timestamp. The string would be preceded by the result of a function that was applied to that string as it was sent by the originating server. A delimiter would separate the function result from the string. The function would be implemented by the server administrator and would be unique for that server or set of servers. A protocol would be employed such that a receiving server could request that the originating server verify that the Sender-Auth header is consistent. The originating server would be required to apply it's function to the string as sent by the requesting server and then return the result. The receiving server would compare the returned function result with the result in the Sender-Auth header and if they match, the sending server is authentic. Another authentication method would be for the originating server to send a short public encryption key in the result field. When the receiving server received the message, it would encrypt a short message and request the sending server to authenticate by decrypting the message with it's private key and sending the message back. If the returned message matched the encrypted message, the sending server is authentic. An example of a function would be an 8 digit check sum of the string that is then exclusive ored with an 8 digit number that is unique at that time, for that server or set of servers. This would generate an 8 digit result. Part of the function should be time based such that the function would actually change in some externally unpredictable manner over a determined interval of an day, hour or minute. The 8 digit number that is the target of the exclusive or, could be the changing value. It could be retrieved from a list of numbers in a file or it could be generated based on a timestamp. The string contains the timestamp of when the function was originally applied to the string. This is an example of one type of function. The actual set of usable functions is extremely large. The 8 digit result length is only an example. Result lengths would be determined by the sending server and could be from 1 to some arbitrary length, perhaps 20, 25, 32 or some other common standard currently in use. The user should be able to turn this authentication on or off for their mailbox. If authentication-required is set by the user, and the authentication process fails, the message would be bounced. An ISP may elect to turn this on for all emails. One may argue that this would add to internet traffic. Perhaps a little, but the messages would be quite short and the fact that they were present and in use would in the long run cut down on internet traffic that is illegitimate. Illegitimate internet traffic is traffic that is meant to deceive a recipient. It would certainly reduce illegitimate internet traffic at a server that had authentication-required set for incoming messages. The message could be bounced at any time after a Sender-Auth header was determined not to be authentic. Another consideration is that many incoming email servers are currently querying other servers on the internet for each email to determine if it is spam. This traffic would no longer be necessary since filters would no longer be required. V. Questions and Answers Will spammers continue to use invalid server and email addresses? No. Noone can send a message to another email address and expect it be received into the mailbox without including a valid mailbox key. No one can request a valid key without sending a valid email address and a key to their mailbox. No messages will be accepted by a receiving email server unless the originating server can be authenticated. How does this differ from white lists? White lists are an attempt by an email client or receiving server to match incoming email to a list of acceptable senders through the use of a filter. This allows forged headers to make the message look like an acceptable email on a white list. Mailbox keys put the burden of being an accepted email on the sender. From the recipients point of view, it is passive in the same sense as an email address. Since everyone gets email from different sources, white lists are maintained in the email client as filters. Most users don't know how to use filters in their email clients, so white lists are used by very few people. With mailbox keys, the headers for the keys could still be "forged", but the chances of generating a correct key are very, very small. If this happens, the user can simply change the key. Mailbox keys move the process of validating an email from the email client out to the incoming server where the message is received. Unacceptable messages are immediately bounced. Will filtering still be necessary? No filtering will not be necessary because a message from a sender is only accepted if it matches a recipient's mailbox key. Filtering creates some false positives email that is not spam, but that the filter detects as spam. Filtering also allows some spam through because spam can be made to look to a filter, like it is not spam. How easy will it be to use? As easy or as hard as the email client supplier makes it. Most processes should be automated, but a user should be able to alter the behavior of the client to some extent, to suit his needs. Examples are: (1) Manually or automatically creating address book entries for incoming email and storing the senders key. (2) User selectable detection of new email senders and the creation of new entries for them in the address book. (5) Provide assistance in responding to a request key email. (4) Manually or automatically sending an email to everyone in the address book for whom the user wants to give a new key to the mailbox. Comments and Questions from: - - - - - The forum charged with discussing spam in the vicinity of the IETF is the Antispam Research Group - asrg@ietf.org - it's an open mailing list. Query: Since your proposal requires changing all email clients in the world and managing a key ring for all your friends, how is it easier to implement than globally starting to use PGP? I suppose that it is somewhat of a key ring, but there is no encryption taking place. The key is only verified by the incoming mail server. The key is really analogous to a key to a lock rather than a key to a cipher. How do you handle mailing lists? Mailing lists are handled the same as any outbound email. The key to the recipient's mailbox must be sent with the message in a header. When one signs up for a list, he would supply a key or he would send an email to the list server to update the key to his mailbox. The list server has to be able to automatically update keys for an email address when the list member wants to send a new key. How the keys are sent back and forth to be updated is in the technical information. Does the sender have to have the key for the list, and the list the keys for all the recipients? That means that all the list management software in the world is also on the critical update path. I understand the issue. Yes, if the incoming mailbox for the list is locked, the sender has to have a key to the list. Only the list server has the keys of all of the members. When it receives a message, it will have to insert the key for each member as it sends the message to each individual member. Yes, unfortunately, list servers are on the critical update path. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:59:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03804 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R3xDb03517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkOH-0000ue-MC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03793; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkOF-0000v4-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkO9-0000uy-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkO5-0000oc-1A; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkNH-0000o1-5j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:58:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03775 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkNE-0000uh-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:58:08 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkN2-0000uY-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:57:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626235411.00bb9dc8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Chris Lewis" , Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Cc: Asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3EFB7A82.6030905@americasm01.nt.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626172459.00bd9290@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:56:29 -0400 At 06:58 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Chris Lewis wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>>See the C&W Rep on the FTC Spam Panel on "The future of spam" session, >>>where he talks about these things. >>> >>>Very chilling. >>> >>>And also very entertaining. He's a great speaker. > >>I will take a look, would you have a link by any chance? > >Everything appears to be online at http://bruce.pennypacker.org/ftc/, >transcripts, audios and full video. > >Here we go, it's Dr. Bill Hancock, Day 1, fourth session. Session title >"Open Relays/Open Proxies/Formmail scripts". > >That will be tape 4. > >I'm on tape 5 & 6, with a cameo on 4 ;-) I read over the transcripts, unfortunately my current bandwidth is way too small for the videos. Well, Dr. Hancock's stuff is definatly chilling, especially the parts about the new 802.16 wireless standard with over 30 mbps going in the radius of 30 miles. Just think of all zombies and open relays possible to be setup. A lot of the stuff he said seems to support Barry's arguments that viruses, zombies and infected computers are a major source of spam. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jun 26 23:59:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03805 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R3xDe03534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkOH-0000us-PX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03794; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkOF-0000v1-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkO9-0000ux-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkO4-0000oU-LZ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkNH-0000o2-F0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:58:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03778 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkNF-0000uk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:58:09 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkN3-0000ud-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:57:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626235649.00bd0008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Selby Hatch , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: <3EFBBFAF.9010400@azza.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:57:24 -0400 At 09:53 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's >>HTML blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. If discussion >>of consent is premature at the moment, what should we be looking at right >>now? In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the >>moment? As it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions >>about everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all. >>Yakov > >How can you say that? The entire proposal that I submitted >was completely and totally about consent and authentication. >I understand that it may not be painless to implement, but I >have read no proposal here that would be both effective and >painless. >[..] Sorry Selby, I definatly must have missed it before. I will look it over carefully. Sorry :( Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 00:05:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03958 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R459x05028 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkU1-0001J1-HN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03947; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkTz-0000wp-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkTt-0000wm-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkTt-0001BY-GN; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkTU-00017p-HQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:04:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03927 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:04:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkTD-0000we-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:04:19 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkSw-0000wa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:04:05 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5R43Puj013664 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:03:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306270403.h5R43Puj013664@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:03:25 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Peter Kay" >... > A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on MUA or MTA > (ISP). Things that MTAs and MUAs can do differ radically. > B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition, related to > the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR to all the > other methods mentioned below. "Plug-in" worries me. At best it suggests an implementation mechanism instead of a protocol notion. At worst it suggests an intolerable security nightmare as is standard in commodity desktop software. > C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting w/ the ISP > (for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate > applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on varying levels of > defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP whitelists > a source, the end-user may have the option to blacklist it. > ... That needs to be made concrete in terms of protocols and mechanisms so that it can be discussed by a technical group. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 00:06:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03987 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R469Q05463 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkUy-0001Q2-VM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03977; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkUw-0000xD-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkUr-0000xA-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkUs-0001Jh-I8; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkUg-0001JW-MA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03974 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkUe-0000x7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:48 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkUT-0000wj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:05:37 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A2B790100FE; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:06:15 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:10:15 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: <150cbd45-d389-4aa5-95a5-41110070e8ad> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consent Proposal thread-index: AcM8SQpJVX0yHYcdT++TDMBFKy1S3gAFzNXQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "ASRG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:06:07 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Everyone, >=20 > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from=20 > Gordon's HTML=20 > blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. If=20 > discussion of=20 > consent is premature at the moment, what should we be looking=20 > at right now?=20 > In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at=20 > the moment? As=20 > it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions about=20 > everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all. >=20 Yakov said the above better and faster than I ever could. Everyone should maybe re-read the charter and reconsider posts carefully to make sure they are in-scope. Too much of the posts that occur on this group are rants that have little to do with research. If you look at the charter carefully you'll see we've got a lot to get accomplished and some very specific topics to discuss. Very little of that has happened so far.=20 Charter is at:=20 http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html ASRG page, INCLUDING POSTING GUIDELINES: http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ Posting guidelines: (everyone, please pay some special attention to the last few sentances) All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of the work items outlined in the ASRG Work Items document below. The subject of each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work item. For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. This will help eliminate both problems. This is a research group. If you have constructive feedback, please share it in an appropriate manner. If you just feel like saying that "spam can not be stopped" or "this group will fail because I said so", then you should state those things elsewhere. This mailing list is for discussion towards the goals of the group as stated in the charter. Peter Kay President TitanKey Software www.titankey.com The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 00:12:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04123 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R4C8a07033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkam-0001pM-N9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04111; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkak-0000zQ-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkae-0000zN-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkae-0001jl-MK; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkZs-0001id-U2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:11:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04072 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkZq-0000yo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:11:10 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkZf-0000yN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:10:59 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A40BA0C00F2; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:11:55 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:15:51 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consent Proposal thread-index: AcM8YYBcU7IiUa6qSXWqNa0KqJOCkAAAHUxQ From: "Peter Kay" To: "Vernon Schryver" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:11:43 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >=20 > Things that MTAs and MUAs can do differ radically. >=20 Yes, that's true and you need both to deal with a wide variety of consent-related policies. > > B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy=20 > definition, related=20 > > to the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR=20 > to all the=20 > > other methods mentioned below. >=20 > "Plug-in" worries me. At best it suggests an implementation=20 > mechanism instead of a protocol notion. At worst it suggests=20 > an intolerable security nightmare as is standard in commodity=20 > desktop software. >=20 You can call it something else if you want. But its pretty obvious to me that a single-vendor, single-architecture solution will not solve the entire "unwanted email" problem. >=20 > > C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting=20 > w/ the ISP=20 > > (for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate=20 > > applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on=20 > varying levels=20 > > of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP=20 > > whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to=20 > blacklist it.=20 > > ... >=20 > That needs to be made concrete in terms of protocols and=20 > mechanisms so that it can be discussed by a technical group. >=20 >=20 Agreed. Perhaps this group can start getting more specific on the protocols and mechanisms.=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 00:13:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04176 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R4D7L07651 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:13:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkbj-0001zK-Sj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04166; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkbh-00010G-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:13:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkbb-00010D-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkbd-0001su-0a; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkbS-0001sM-V6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04153 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkbQ-0000zl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:48 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VkbB-0000zh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:12:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627001055.00bc1ea8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , "ASRG" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:11:43 -0400 We haven't seen much direction from the chair and the issue has been brought up in the IAB meeting last month. At 06:06 PM 6/26/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >Everyone, > > > > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from > > Gordon's HTML > > blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. If > > discussion of > > consent is premature at the moment, what should we be looking > > at right now? > > In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at > > the moment? As > > it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions about > > everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all. > > > >Yakov said the above better and faster than I ever could. Everyone >should maybe re-read the charter and reconsider posts carefully to make >sure they are in-scope. Too much of the posts that occur on this group >are rants that have little to do with research. If you look at the >charter carefully you'll see we've got a lot to get accomplished and >some very specific topics to discuss. Very little of that has happened >so far. > >Charter is at: >http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html > >ASRG page, INCLUDING POSTING GUIDELINES: > >http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ > > >Posting guidelines: (everyone, please pay some special attention to the >last few sentances) > >All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one of the work >items outlined in the ASRG Work Items document below. The subject of >each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work item. >For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - >Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it >difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. >This will help eliminate both problems. This is a research group. If you >have constructive feedback, please share it in an appropriate manner. If >you just feel like saying that "spam can not be stopped" or "this group >will fail because I said so", then you should state those things >elsewhere. This mailing list is for discussion towards the goals of the >group as stated in the charter. > > >Peter Kay >President >TitanKey Software www.titankey.com >The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 00:30:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04627 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R4UCf14131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VksG-0003fq-H4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04621; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VksE-00016J-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vks8-00016G-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vks5-0003ZZ-7u; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkrw-0003ZF-GU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:29:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04616 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkrt-000169-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:29:50 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkrj-000164-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:29:39 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A86692000FE; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:30:30 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:34:30 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consent Proposal thread-index: AcM8YpnTRXO7FoJ3SGOQZenud4osIAAAWqmw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:30:22 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you Yakov for putting it once again better than I could. With all due respect to the chair, there has been very little leadership/steering and the current results tend to speak for themselves.=20 >=20 > We haven't seen much direction from the chair and the issue has been=20 > brought up in the IAB meeting last month. >=20 > At 06:06 PM 6/26/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >=20 > >Everyone, > > > > > > > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from=20 > > > Gordon's HTML blocking thread, there has been no=20 > discussion of that.=20 > > > If discussion of > > > consent is premature at the moment, what should we be looking > > > at right now? > > > In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at > > > the moment? As > > > it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions about > > > everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of=20 > direction at all. > > > > > > >Yakov said the above better and faster than I ever could. Everyone > >should maybe re-read the charter and reconsider posts=20 > carefully to make > >sure they are in-scope. Too much of the posts that occur on=20 > this group > >are rants that have little to do with research. If you look at the > >charter carefully you'll see we've got a lot to get accomplished and > >some very specific topics to discuss. Very little of that=20 > has happened > >so far. > > > >Charter is at: > >http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html > > > >ASRG page, INCLUDING POSTING GUIDELINES: > > > >http://www.irtf.org/asrg/ > > > > > >Posting guidelines: (everyone, please pay some special=20 > attention to the > >last few sentances) > > > >All conversation on this mailing list must be regarding one=20 > of the work > >items outlined in the ASRG Work Items document below. The subject of > >each email should begin with the number of the appropriate work item. > >For example, "2.a - Spam Measurement Survey Requirements" or "6 - > >Proposal for hash-based traceback system". The list volume makes it > >difficult to follow individual conversations and to filter the noise. > >This will help eliminate both problems. This is a research=20 > group. If you > >have constructive feedback, please share it in an=20 > appropriate manner. If > >you just feel like saying that "spam can not be stopped" or=20 > "this group > >will fail because I said so", then you should state those things > >elsewhere. This mailing list is for discussion towards the=20 > goals of the > >group as stated in the charter. > > > > > >Peter Kay > >President > >TitanKey Software www.titankey.com > >The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 00:37:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04841 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R4b9Z17308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkyz-0004V5-Kd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04828; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkyw-00019N-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vkyr-00019K-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vkyr-0004GY-Vv; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VkyW-0004F2-Mh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:36:40 -0400 Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04815 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h5R4Z4IW024797 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:35:04 -0400 Received: from att.com (unknown[135.210.8.36](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20030627043324gw100r9ible> (Authid: tony); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:33:24 +0000 Message-ID: <3EFBC982.8040109@att.com> From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030308 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Meeting at IETF57? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:35:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't see the ASRG on the IETF 56 Agenda. Tony Hansen tony@att.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 01:31:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05771 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5R5VFC08663 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VlpL-0002Fe-MP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05760; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VlpI-0001Qa-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VlpD-0001QX-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vlp7-0002Be-4V; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vloz-00028m-Hc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:30:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05733 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:30:36 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vloh-0001QN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:30:35 -0400 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VloW-0001Q8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:30:24 -0400 Received: (cpmta 28405 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 22:29:58 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 22:29:58 -0700 X-Sent: 27 Jun 2003 05:29:58 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:28:25 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:55:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:55:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based system as per charter: > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter incoming email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, and are not mandated. Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from banning all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. I'd like to make sure that those rules can be specified differently for any given sender... and, for that matter, any given destination E-mail address, so you can give specific rights to some senders (who need those for the kind of things I expect to receive from them) while denying those same rights to other senders. Right can be extended on a strict "need to send/trust to send" basis. For example, many of us have several E-mail addresses (or even catch-all accounts) and I might wish a given sender to be able to send something to me under one of my "hats" that I might not accept from them (or indeed ANYBODY maybe) when I'm wearing a different hat. > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist of trusted senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of unknown senders. Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to the bulk folder, and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or erased. Again, there needs to be different privilege levels specifiable for different sender/destination address pairs. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 12:33:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06787 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RGWlZ32372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vw9X-0008Q3-AW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06756; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vw9V-0004Vo-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vw9Q-0004Vl-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vw8q-0008JW-Rj; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:32:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vn3S-0006BX-Ls for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:49:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19389 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vn3O-0001qy-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:49:50 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vn3E-0001qq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:49:40 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2488645; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:49:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: To: Asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: [Asrg] http://donotcall.gov/ Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:49:11 -0400 You would think, given all the time and money that went into this, that they could have gotten something as simple as an email address right. They are mis-parsing email addresses. A + turns into a space on the next form (they didn't escape it), and the email address will be incorrectly stored. Other perfectly legal characters (%, &) are being rejected. Clearly nobody bothered to read an RFC (not that I can figure out why they would care if you enter "illegal" characters. Either the email gets delivered or it doesn't. Not their problem. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 14:48:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12776 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RIlX526148 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:47:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyFx-0006nf-Nz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:47:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12749; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyFQ-0006cS-Di; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:47:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyEG-0006O9-Pi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:46:03 -0400 Received: from mail.nitros9.org (IDENT:root@giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca [192.139.46.36]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12579 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19VyCg-0001Wz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:44:10 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:25 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120912.00babb10@std5.imagineis.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:44:10 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Then according to you, how is spam different from a DDOS attack were > thousands of computers start spewing packets? This is one part where I agree 100% with Barry: It's no different. Spam is a permanent DDoS attack. Any lesser interpretation of it is inadequate. Where I may differ from other people is that I believe the design and use of SMTP is itself contributory to the *ability* and *ease* by which this DDoS attack may be maintained. In addition, many network behaviours that non-spammers find useful, and which they refuse to live without, are indistinguishable from the behaviour of spammers. This further prevents any solution from being implemented. > If both problems are similar, then perhaps we need to look into what > methods are currently in place to block DDOS attacks and we can > reuse the same methods here for spam. DDoS attacks can only be prevented if the network entities mutually cooperate to minimize the scope of the attack. As seen here, that's extremely difficult to do. A naive approach to fighting DDoS attacks is to push packet filter rules "upstream". There is some research on this topic, but you end up with a network entity being asked to apply thousands or hundreds of thousands, of filtering rules, with little perceived local benefit. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:14:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15197 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJDel04576 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyfE-0001Bj-C4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15114; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyeb-00011k-6F; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vye4-0000zQ-Ny for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:12:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13989 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VySF-0005N5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:00:15 -0400 Received: from h-d1d1248a.digitalpod.com ([209.209.36.138] helo=yaweno.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VyS4-0005MI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:00:04 -0400 Received: from apocalypse [206.170.148.241] by yaweno.com (SMTPD32-7.03) id ABC5CDC009C; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:24:05 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Howard Roth" To: "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C33C9F.19253000" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Subject: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:27:31 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C33C9F.19253000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA13994 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Overview of Email Sender Validation Effort to reduce SPAM: Efforts to validate the sender of an email message will help reduce the dissemination of unwanted email. We propose a specific methodology to address this issue by using a simple method based on a process that respo= nds to a new message with specially coded request for validation message. Th= is specially coded message is sent to the =93reply to=94 address. The messa= ge initiating mail server receives this reply and responds with an acknowledgement to the recipient mailer server if the initial message was indeed sent from this server. Otherwise it does not respond. If a posit= ive response comes back the initial message is transferred from a pending directory to the recipients directory. If there is no response in a parameter based time period the initial message is discarded by the recipient mail server. Here is a more detailed, but simple, example of how we propose the soluti= on work: User A uses his or her MUA to send a message to User B. Server A sends t= he message to Server B. Server A runs a standard MTA process and that transmits the message. A copy of the message header is stored on Server= A to match against a validation effort. Server B receives the message thro= ugh the standard MTA method but all messages go into a pending mail directory (PMD). Another process called mail validation agent (MVA) manages the pending mail directory. Server B=92s MVA reviews incoming messages in the PMD and sends a request= for validation (RFV) to the sender for each new message via the standard MTA = of Server B. The file name of a message that has an RFV outstanding is chang= ed to differentiate it from new messages. The RFV is a standard message that contains some specifically defined elements to allow the process of verification to work. The RFV contains = a random string that is associated with the initial message=92s file name. = The RFV also contains details for Server A to validate that the message was sent. A piece of the message is purposely not sent to Server A so that i= t gets added to Server=92s A response to the RVF and provides additional legitimacy to the validity of the message. Server A receives the RVF and places all such messages in a specific mail directory. A process manages RVF=92s on the server. This process on Ser= ver A validates the RVF. If it is valid, that is there is a match to the store= d header; the process on Server A sends a response to validation request (RVR). Server A deletes the stored header. This RVR is returned to Serve= r B and proceeds to manage the =93valid=94 message. If Server A does not fin= d a match to the RVF, then no action is taken. Stored header information for matching is cleaned up from a sending serve= r based on a parameter driven period of time. This could be several days t= o account for a recipient=92s server being down. If there is no response to the RVF, within a parameter-based period of ti= me, the message is discarded. This is a rough draft of the concept without too much detail in terms of actual implementation. Comments would be appreciated. Howard Roth The NetTech Group, Inc. 11 Airport Blvd., Suite 200 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone - 650-871-7209 Fax - 650-871-7219 Email - hroth@tngi.com ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C33C9F.19253000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Overview of Email Sender = Validation Effort to reduce SPAM:

 <= /p>

Efforts to validate the sender of = an email message will help reduce the dissemination of unwanted email. We propose = a specific methodology to address this issue by using a simple method = based on a process that responds to a new message with specially coded request for validation message.  This = specially coded message is sent to the “reply to” address.  The message initiating mail server receives this = reply and responds with an acknowledgement to the recipient mailer server if the = initial message was indeed sent from this server.  Otherwise it does not respond.  If a positive response comes back the initial message is = transferred from a pending directory to the recipients directory.  If there is no response in a parameter based time = period the initial message is discarded by the recipient mail = server.<= /p>

 <= /p>

Here is a more detailed, but = simple, example of how we propose the solution work:<= /p>

 <= /p>

User A uses his or her MUA to = send a message to User B.  Server = A sends the message to Server B.  = Server A runs a standard MTA process and that transmits the message.   A copy of the message header is stored on Server A to = match against a validation effort.  Server B receives the message through the standard MTA method but all messages = go into a pending mail directory (PMD).  Another process called mail validation agent (MVA) manages the = pending mail directory.  = <= /p>

 <= /p>

Server B’s MVA reviews = incoming messages in the PMD and sends a request for validation (RFV) to the sender for = each new message via the standard MTA of Server B. The file name of a message = that has an RFV outstanding is changed to differentiate it from new = messages.<= /p>

 <= /p>

The RFV is a standard message = that contains some specifically defined elements to allow the process of verification to work.  The = RFV contains a random string that is associated with the initial = message’s file name.  The RFV also = contains details for Server A to validate that the message was sent.  A piece of the message is = purposely not sent to Server A so that it gets added to Server’s A response to = the RVF and provides additional legitimacy to the validity of the = message.<= /p>

 <= /p>

Server A receives the RVF and = places all such messages in a specific mail directory.  A process manages RVF’s on the server.  This process on Server A = validates the RVF.  If it is valid, that = is there is a match to the stored header; the process on Server A sends a = response to validation request (RVR).  = Server A deletes the stored header. This RVR is returned to Server B and proceeds = to manage the “valid” message.  If Server A does not find a match to the RVF, then no action is taken.  <= /p>

 <= /p>

Stored header information for = matching is cleaned up from a sending server based on a parameter driven period of time.  This could be = several days to account for a recipient’s server being down.<= /p>

 <= /p>

If there is no response to the = RVF, within a parameter-based period of time, the message is discarded.  <= /p>

 <= /p>

This is a rough draft of the = concept without too much detail in terms of actual implementation.  <= /p>

 <= /p>

Comments would be = appreciated.<= /p>

 <= /p>

 

 

Howard Roth

The = NetTech Group, Inc.

11 = Airport Blvd., Suite 200

South = San Francisco, CA 94080

Phone - 650-871-7209

Fax - 650-871-7219

Email - hroth@tngi.com

 <= /p>

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C33C9F.19253000-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:22:05 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16128 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJLaI07766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vymu-00021B-CU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16074; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VymM-0001q8-GL; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vylm-0001le-Kw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:20:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15995 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vyll-0005XV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:20:25 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VylY-0005WO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:20:13 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151839.00bab598@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Selby Hatch , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:18:39 -0400 At 09:53 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Selby Hatch wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's >>HTML blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. If discussion >>of consent is premature at the moment, what should we be looking at right >>now? In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the >>moment? As it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions >>about everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all. >>Yakov > >How can you say that? The entire proposal that I submitted >was completely and totally about consent and authentication. >I understand that it may not be painless to implement, but I >have read no proposal here that would be both effective and >painless. >[..] > >Spam elimination by mailbox lock and key (or token) and by >sender authentication >[..] The main crux of the proposal is that the sender and receiver share a key which expresses agreement to exchange email - i.e. consent. The key is a consent token. My problem is that this is a specific implementation or way to build consent systems. We should strive to define a general consent framework into which proposals such as this will fit. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:22:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16144 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJLer07835 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyfX-0001Dd-B0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:59 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09290; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrN-0004m3-LA; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VuMC-0002Kf-6W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01656 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VuM5-00036e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:37 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VuLv-00036W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:27 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ACA36126; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-223-223.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.223.223]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJN84327; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Jon Kyme'" Cc: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <002301c33cb9$9de56a20$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:37:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside=20 > from Gordon's HTML blocking thread, there has been no=20 > discussion of that. Not true... As Selby Hatch has already pointed out, his proposal was focused on the consent issue. So are the various proposals that I've made for "license to send" and/or "single user addresses" (stuff like TMDA). See my first posting on 3-March -- one of the first in this group... Also, quite a number of the patents that I've listed at various times have been for "consent-based" systems of one form or another. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:22:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16163 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJLfG07909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyfm-0001Dd-MR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:14:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09297; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrT-0004zU-O6; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VuSS-0002NW-C5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:44:12 -0400 Received: from usergg026.dsl.pipex.com (usergg026.dsl.pipex.com [62.190.174.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22185 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:31:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cenderis.demon.co.uk ([62.49.17.254]) by usergg026.dsl.pipex.com via TCP (with SMTP (external)) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:17:27 +0100 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Anticipatory whitelisting (was Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> <16123.34423.451831.720851@world.std.com> From: Bruce Stephens In-Reply-To: <16123.34423.451831.720851@world.std.com> (Barry Shein's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:11 -0400") Message-ID: <84fzlvojo4.fsf_-_@cenderis.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:15:55 +0100 Barry Shein writes: > A. There's nothing new here. > > B. It remains to be shown that the approach is useful. > > C. Repeating once again how these "rules and filters" are somehow > going to magically appear won't make it happen. > > D. "For each email user the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist..." > > MUAs don't maintain whitelists, people do. And that's the crux of > the problem as has been shown repeatedly, people generally don't > know the exact details of where the confirmation of their FTC/AT&T > no-call list is going to come from to put them on their > whitelist. Etc. That's an important problem, and it's one that the IETF (or some other body, such as W3C) could help to solve. Something that would be helpful would be (say) and XML specification for small documents that web sites could offer for email lists that they run. Such documents would include information about the originator address of email from the list (or some other kind of authenticator), and information for subscribing and unsubscribing from the list, together with information about the list (description, perhaps an icon that user agents can use). I've phrased that poorly in the sense that the same idea would work for short-term communication agreements (such as information about a particular order from amazon.com, say). Some documents could specify an expiry time for this use. Obviously, email clients would parse such documents, and (after presenting the information and receiving confirmation) would be able to set up the whitelist (also perhaps arranging a filter to put email into a special folder), and then tell the originating site about the desire to accept communications. (I say "email client" on the grounds that most people use IE/OE, so their email client is also their web browser. Obviously it would be slightly more complex if the two are separate, but still readily doable.) I'm not sure how the information would be passed to ISPs that offer to do filtering. As you say, there are privacy issues. However, if these privacy issues can (to a sufficient extent) be addressed, then a standardised way for the permission information to be passed to ISPs would be valuable. Even in the absence of spam, that would be handy, since it would make it easy to manage mailing lists (my MUA could show me a list, and could automatically filter them into folders). It wouldn't be so valued by many commercial organisations, since subscribing to their advertising would involve more than not unchecking a 2x2 pixel checkbox at the end of a long web page, but that doesn't seem a big disadvantage to me. I think the idea's a potential win: it would make managing mailing lists (and similar things, like information about specific things like orders) much easier, and much more usable. Given that we're mostly concerned with spam, making whitelists usable can work with other approaches: something like RMX can make the whitelist somewhat reliable even when using the originator address as authenticator; using hashcash (or email stamps or something) would permit unsolicited email (much interperson email could use hashcash, for example), provided the sender is willing to pay the cost. In fact, I think usable whitelists together with hashcash would be a very nice email system. [...] > The ISPs maintaining the whitelist has privacy issues (and don't > just jump back to ok then keep it in the MUA, that's a shell game, > if half your proposal lacks merit that's a problem.) > > Not too many senators want to tell AOL that they think the email > they get from hotties@big-butts.com is ok and should be allowed > through. True. ISPs can already see that the senator is receiving email from hotties@big-butts.com, of course, but you're right that that's a big step away from knowing that the senator has asked for it. This seems a general problem where user-controlled filtering can happen at the ISP: the ISP could record which emails have passed through, and can make inferences about what email the user wants to receive. The better the quality of filtering that's being used, the better the quality of the inference. Ideas like hashing (especially with salts and other tricks) can reduce the privacy implications of exposing the database that the ISP needs to keep, but the ISP itself can just watch the traffic. [...] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:22:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16202 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJLiC08244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyfX-0001Dd-F1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:59 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09296; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VxrH-0004fR-Ip; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:22:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vn98-0006Ol-Dn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:55:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19430 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vn94-0001ru-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:55:42 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vn8t-0001rd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:55:32 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Vn7J-00031y-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:53:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205450.00b41768@std5.imagineis.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:53:53 +0100 > >I don't believe that this adds up to what you claim. > > > >There was some more fundamental (but probably premature) > >discussion of "consent" early in the life this group. > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's > HTML > blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. You might be interested in the threads starting with "[Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple" and "[Asrg] What would consent look like?" >If discussion of > consent is premature at the moment, I meant premature at the time. People were busy contributing their pet silver bullets. I thought this would have stopped by now. Shows how much I know... :-) >what should we be looking at right > now? > In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the moment? I strongly believe that you are right, that an analysis of the consent problem is important. I believe that one can get to a general framework for anti-spam systems from first principles. I think it tends to something like: message classifier function + expression of recipient policy (consent expression) + policy enforcement agent -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:23:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16302 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJMWK09034 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyno-0002Ld-IW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16257; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VynJ-0002BW-QH; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyml-0001zC-5Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16070 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vymj-0005YP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:25 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VymX-0005Y9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:14 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151955.00bb9668@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Chris Lewis" , Bill Thorson From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3EFC6007.8040402@americasm01.nt.com> References: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:20:44 -0400 At 11:17 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Chris Lewis wrote: >Bill Thorson wrote: >>ASRG Group, >>I've been working on smtp server software and have >>noticed something very strange. We seem to have many >>connections made, mostly at night, who connect to >>port 25 and then disconnect right after the >>220 Server Ready message. I was believing that I >>had a bug in my software but now I am wondering if >>this is a bot of some type. Do spammers run bots >>to search for and create lists of mail servers to >>attack? Is this what I'm seeing? > >The SMTP "channel" is unbelievably dirty. > >On our spamtrap, we see machines making _thousands_ of transactions that >consist of only: > HELO somevalue > QUIT Have you considering the possibility that they are checking for RMX/rDNS compliance? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:25:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16514 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJPPc10545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:25:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyqb-0002k0-HJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:25:25 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16448; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyq0-0002Tq-1C; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:24:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vynm-0002LS-Hr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16252 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vynl-0005ZD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:29 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VynZ-0005Z0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:22:18 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151536.00b92090@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Jon Kyme" , , Barry Shein From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Cc: "ASRG" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:21:46 -0400 At 04:29 PM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside > > > from Gordon's HTML blocking thread, there has been no > > > discussion of that. > > Not true... As Selby Hatch has already pointed out, his proposal > > was focused on the consent issue. So are the various proposals that I've > > made for "license to send" and/or "single user addresses" (stuff like > > TMDA). See my first posting on 3-March -- one of the first in this > > group... Also, quite a number of the patents that I've listed at various > > times have been for "consent-based" systems of one form or another. > > > >There is quite a common misaprehension (as I see it): >that systems which rely on "consent tokens" must solve the larger >problem of "consent based communication". Correct. >Clearly, consent token based systems do seek to enforce the >recipients wish for consent based communication. >However, generally, I can chose to consent (or not) to receive any message >(or class of messages) that I can describe, and I can hope >that there exists an agency which will enforce my expressed policy. > >This is not merely an academic point. The problem has been generalised >(this is a good thing), we should be able to form a general description >of the kind of things that might offer solutions. There are seems to be two ways to deal with spam. One way, proposed by Barry Shein and Eric Brunner, is by concentrating on the senders of spam, and the network that carries it, and shut the senders down. These MAY INCLUDE legal measures, low-level network detection, coordinated detection, anti-DDOS tactics, etc. The second way which is defined in the charter is by looking at the receiver's end - and define a consent framework to be used by receivers. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:38:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17420 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJbbD14316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz2P-0003iW-ML for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:37 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17378; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz1t-0003Ga-2h; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VyzR-00035p-GG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:34:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17180 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VyzQ-0005fv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:34:32 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VyzD-0005fo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:34:21 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627153042.00b51310@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:31:35 -0400 At 02:44 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Then according to you, how is spam different from a DDOS attack were > > thousands of computers start spewing packets? > > This is one part where I agree 100% with Barry: It's no different. > > Spam is a permanent DDoS attack. Any lesser interpretation of it is >inadequate. > > Where I may differ from other people is that I believe the design >and use of SMTP is itself contributory to the *ability* and *ease* by >which this DDoS attack may be maintained. In addition, many network >behaviours that non-spammers find useful, and which they refuse to >live without, are indistinguishable from the behaviour of spammers. >This further prevents any solution from being implemented. In your opinion, would changes to underlying protocols like SMTP make any difference? > > If both problems are similar, then perhaps we need to look into what > > methods are currently in place to block DDOS attacks and we can > > reuse the same methods here for spam. > > DDoS attacks can only be prevented if the network entities mutually >cooperate to minimize the scope of the attack. As seen here, that's >extremely difficult to do. > > A naive approach to fighting DDoS attacks is to push packet filter >rules "upstream". There is some research on this topic, but you end >up with a network entity being asked to apply thousands or hundreds of >thousands, of filtering rules, with little perceived local benefit. Would about coordinated detection like Dshield.org? Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 15:40:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17632 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJdXa16946 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:39:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz4H-0004PF-DJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:39:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17585; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz3l-00045e-KD; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz2h-0003to-N5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:38:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17406 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vz2g-0005i5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:54 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vz2V-0005fY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:43 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ACA72870; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-223-223.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.223.223]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJO45895; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Message-ID: <000701c33ce3$0ccdc300$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:33:56 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re Howard Roth's proposal for RFV's, etc.... I think this proposal is addressing a real opportunity in a bad way. Basically, what it seems that what the author is looking for is a way for a server to state whether or not it was, in fact, the sender of a specific message. The approach used in the proposal is to generate additional network traffic by having the recipient of a message query the claimed sender as to whether or not it did actually send the message. If the goal is really to determine whether the stated sender actually sent the message and if you're willing to write new code/protocol in order to get such a statement, then the "correct" way to do this is to have the originating server simply sign outgoing messages. Recipients would then look in some well known place to find the appropriate certificates with which to validate the signatures. (It would be most convenient if the location of the certificate repository for the domain and/or server were found by doing a lookup on a resource in the domain's DNS record.) Note: Such a mechanism would be very easy to implement, cheap to operate, distributed, provides for gradual acceptance, etc.... But, for some reason, people seem not to like signatures. I don't understand why. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 16:19:15 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19017 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RKIlY27706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VzgF-0007CY-51 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18927; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VzfW-0006r0-BX; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vzef-0006gY-Qm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:17:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18625 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VzSY-0005uo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:04:38 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VzSO-0005uh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:04:28 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19VzRK-0001ZI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:03:22 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:31:35 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030627153042.00b51310@std5.imagineis.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:03:22 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > In your opinion, would changes to underlying protocols like SMTP make any > difference? "ANY" difference? Sure. "Enough" difference, I'm not so sure. Discarding SMTP, and going to full client & server certificates with whitelists, RMX, challenge-responses, temporary/signed addresses, etc. would obviously get rid of most of the spam... as well as most non-spam email. The difficulty is finding the balance. My concern with the discussions here is that the "balance" is skewed towards "doing nothing", which is the other end of the spectrum from the system I described above. That is, when anyone asks "What CAN be changed about SMTP", the response is either "nothing!", or dead silence. > Would about coordinated detection like Dshield.org? It looks like it's down right now, and I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 16:27:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17419 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RJbb314297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz2P-0003iV-K7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:37 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17379; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vz1s-0003G2-2n; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:37:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vyw7-000311-M6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:31:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17018 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vyw6-0005ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:31:06 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vyvu-0005eW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:30:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627152326.00bbca78@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Madscientist , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030627073407.00b4b478@mail.microneil.com> References: <200306270040.h5R0ee2x016262@calcite.rhyolite.com> <16123.36063.107676.763852@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:30:29 -0400 At 08:20 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Madscientist wrote: [..] >I suggest we remain focused on solving the problem of control and the >suppression of abuse. This can be done by technical means in a >decentralized fashion, and we'd better get on with it. > >+ adjustments and enhancements to open protocols and standards. >+ distributed, dynamic threat detection and response mechanisms. >+ intelligent controls that allow recipients to define the content they want. >+ adaptive propagation mechanisms to enhance efficiency. >... > >If the infrastructure of the Internet disconnects abusers, and the >definition of abuse is controlled by the recipients, then the economics >will be well defined for the spammer: If you abuse this network you will >be removed from it and _no amount_ of money will get your messages to >unwilling recipients. It will also be well defined for the provider: >Implement these protocols or lose customers to those who do. >[..] As I mentioned in a different thread there seems to be two types of solutions to the spam problem: one focusing on the senders and the network (network abuse model), and the second focusing on the receiver's end only (consent model). I think that both are equally valid and we should be looking at both, and restrict ourselves. Also, from a recent message by Alan DeKok: -----snip---- Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >If both problems are similar, then perhaps we need to look into what > methods are currently in place to block DDOS attacks and we can > reuse the same methods here for spam. "DDoS attacks can only be prevented if the network entities mutually cooperate to minimize the scope of the attack. As seen here, that's extremely difficult to do." -----snip---- Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 17:08:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19016 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RKIlo27690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VzgF-0007CW-1j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18926; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VzfX-0006se-Et; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:18:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vzeg-0006gd-7G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:17:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18615 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:16:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VzTK-0005vN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:05:26 -0400 Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net ([216.104.160.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19VzT9-0005tH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:05:15 -0400 Received: from mx0.emailqueue.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA55016 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spencer@mcsr-labs.org) Received: from (216.62.6.129 [216.62.6.129]) by mail.varaha.com with SMTP id 9JE0fNK2 Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020a01c33ce7$067b1f30$8100000a@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" References: <000701c33ce3$0ccdc300$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:02:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Bob, I'm not saying this to be smart - perhaps part of the problem is our inability to come up with a certificate for an arbitrary person somewhere in the Internet, so we can verify signatures? Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Wyman" To: ; "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:33 PM Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Note: Such a mechanism would be very easy to implement, cheap to operate, distributed, provides for gradual acceptance, etc.... But, for some reason, people seem not to like signatures. I don't understand why. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 18:34:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24065 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RMXcE02277 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1mk-0000ae-4u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24015; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1jW-0007Uf-0c; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1JZ-0005hC-82 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:03:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21756 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1JW-0006fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:03:26 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1JL-0006fZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:03:15 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ANE86269; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:02:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-223-223.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.223.223]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJO74559; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Message-ID: <000c01c33cf7$e4e1ae50$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <020a01c33ce7$067b1f30$8100000a@DFNJGL21> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:03:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Spencer Dawkins wrote: > our inability to come up with a certificate for=20 > an arbitrary person somewhere in the Internet,=20 > so we can verify signatures? I said nothing about certificates for "arbitrary persons". The subject discussed was how do you prove that a message was sent by a specific *server*. The key to simplification here is that the server will have a DNS record and that DNS record can have SVR records associated with it. What you do is set up an SVR record that points to the certificate server for the mail server. Then, you pick any of the many available certificate formats and say: "This certificate format is the one to use for mail server identification." Locating certificates for arbitrary people is a different problem since we don't have anything like a DNS service for them. i.e. there is no way to make a connection to an "arbitrary person" and ask it questions. In any case, certificates for "arbitrary persons" are only needed if you are trying to ensure that mail came from "arbitrary persons." In this case, we're trying to determine if mail came from a specific server -- not a person. The kind of certificate needed in a system like I'm suggesting here can be very minimal and even self-generated. You don't, for instance, have to worry about having any CA that issues the things. You can just create an arbitrary public key and publish it via the certificate server of your choice. The reason for this is that you are asking the server's DNS server itself to tell you where to find the server's key. As long as you trust that you are speaking to the server's DNS, you can invest reasonable trust in any statements it makes.=20 (Yes, I realize that one can spoof DNS data, etc. however, I believe that will not be a significant problem in *this* specific application. The worst case that results from any spoofed data is the present case: i.e. faked addresses. However, I believe that the vast majority of servers will have management that ensures that their data is properly maintained and monitored. The fake source data will diminish as more and more server managers adopt the method even though some small, and insignificant portion of them will end up with hacked data.) bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 18:34:09 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24099 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RMXhp02312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1mp-0000bD-8R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:43 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24016; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1jU-0007TW-W2; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1AY-0005C8-93 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:54:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21565 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1AV-0006dO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:54:07 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1AK-0006d8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:53:56 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 7FA4F29C049; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E9629C01F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id ACA2BEA6013A; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:52:34 -0400 From: "Madscientist" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch Message-ID: <00a901c33cf6$6a501380$0a2458d8@MNR01> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627152326.00bbca78@std5.imagineis.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Declude-Spoolname: Dbca213a.SMD Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:52:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>If the infrastructure of the Internet disconnects abusers, and the >>definition of abuse is controlled by the recipients, then the >economics >>will be well defined for the spammer: If you abuse this >network you will >>be removed from it and _no amount_ of money will get your messages to >>unwilling recipients. It will also be well defined for the provider: >>Implement these protocols or lose customers to those who do. >>[..] > >As I mentioned in a different thread there seems to be two types of >solutions to the spam problem: one focusing on the senders and >the network >(network abuse model), and the second focusing on the >receiver's end only >(consent model). I think that both are equally valid and we should be >looking at both, and restrict ourselves. Actually, what I am suggesting is that there should be a unified model where the consent model can (essentially) drive the network abuse model via a collection of open protocols. I will attempt to summarize: Each terminal user would feed policy decisions (or not if they are lazy) to their local MTA. The local MTA aggregates those policy decisions and responds accordingly while allowing for any exceptions to specific end users. (Lazy users would accept by default the aggregate policy of the system, or some other standard defined by their relationship with their provider). Failure to respect negative responses, or to fail to properly execute other protocols can be monitored by the MTA and would be seen as abuse. Other tests could also be added as abuse detection mechanisms (port scan detection, dictionary attacks, delivery or attempted delivery of malware, etc..) MTAs with compatible policies would collaborate to share common elements and would collect sensory data on abuse as well as diseminate that data as needed with peers. Peers would be selected based on COT (Circle Of Trust) protocols whereby each participating node continuously evaluates the performance, consistency, and policy proximity of it's peer nodes and migrates to new peers as needed. This mechanism provides for no single point of failure as there is no centralized authority. It also overlays automatically with an optimized, distributed processing facility for threat detection and collective response. (NOTE: Nodes need not be a single MTA, MUA or otherwise. In fact, an MTA in a large scale system might support many "nodes" so that it can aggregate the policies of it's end users based on similarities between groups to simplify it's local delivery rules. Other devices may also play a part depending upon local policies.) Aggressive abuse would trigger aggressive measures such as blocking inbound access from the offending ips and/or networks. (DSQP = Dynamic Squelch Propogation). At first, a local MTA would refuse connections at an envelope level if a "more terminalward" MTA (or MUA or MUA agent) refused the content. If the refusal was not heeded or if other abuse was present sufficient to meet the local policy thresholds, then the MTA would initiate a DSQP request to it's border routers to refuse access from the offending network. Collaborating nodes within a high trust level of the COT would be allowed to aggregate individual IPs to network blocks appropriate to fit their collective requirements and optimize network level controls at the border routers or other similar structures. DSQP news messages might be broadcast to peers depending on local and peer policy. Peers might then aggregate or simply act on similar news messages by issuing their own local DSQP. In this way, for example, worms could be detected and blocked before they could spread. Similarly, unwanted spam broadcasts might also be detected and slowed for analysis or entirely blocked based on the wide detection of abuse. For example, a network provider might have a COT/DSQP policy such that some threshold of DSQP requests for a given network at the network's edge might result in a broad propogation of DSQP requests directly to the sources for that traffic. For example if a large ISP were to detect DSQP-Malware signals from 5% of it's network clients then it might have a policy to block the source network named in the DSQP at the border routers thus temporarily denying transit across it's network. A similar action might occur at a higher level for DSQP-Spam reports with a specific characteristic (such as a new unknown source reported by 10% of client networks - again, local policies prevail [ the provider might know that only 15% of it's client networks have these protocols in place so a 10% showing would indicate a very high threat ]). Collaborating intermediate providers might therefore block serious network threats and DDoS attacks automatically based on detecting abuse reports from client systems - and thus disconnect the source of the abuse. (NOTE: All of these protocols also relax restrictions automatically once abuse subsides based on local policy decisions. In any case the responses at each level would be metered by local policies in much the same way BGP policies can be established to accept or deny routes from particular sources under specific conditions... If someone makes a mistake, they would be blocked, but once they correct that mistake they are back in operation.) The model also works well during rollout (before wide deployment) provided the local policies of each peer are willing to accept non-compliant (outdated) MTA traffic. Consider an inbound message from a new sender (from the perspective of a given MTA). The MTA would ask some number of peers in it's COT to "vouch" for the sender. If the other peers in it's group show a good rating for the sender then the message would be processed with little bias and a new monitoring record would be developed in the local node. If the peers show a bad rating for the new sender then the local MTA might adopt that policy and reject the message. (for example if the same sender had recently attempted a dictionary attack on one of my peers then "I" would not want to accept any traffic from that sender.) If the peers do not have any rating for the new sender then the local MTA would process the message according to it's local policy for new contacts. It would also begin forming it's own rating for that sender based on the sender's performance, adherence to policy and protocol requests etc. One way this new unknown message might be processed is with an IRRQ (Intelligent Retry Request) where the initial message is rejected with a unique response that the sender can use in their next retry after an appropriate guard time. (IRRQ modifies SMTP by indicating a temporary failure and providing a one-time password for the sender to use in their next attempt. The sender issues the password as it's first recipient in it's retries after an established guard time in order to comply with the protocol. A non-compliant sender would respond normally to the initial temporary failure. Spamware would not remember the password and would probably do a lot of other detectable things. An uncompromised MTA would at least act in a predictable way (not retrying 30 seconds later for example). An MTA implementing the protocol would most certainly not be spamware and would be given a higher trust rating provided no other policies were violated.) If the sending MTA has implemented IRRQ and responds appropriately then the local node might increase it's "trust" rating. If the sending MTA does not implement this protocl then the local MTA would be somewhat more biased against this incoming traffic as determined by it's local policy. If, on the other hand the new sending MTA began pounding the local MTA with bad requests (or other detectable abuse) then the local rating for this sender would immediately plummit and no messages would be accepted (escallating as indicated above if necessary). Since this local MTA now has a rating for this sender, if the sender attempts to contact on of the peers in the COT then those peers would receive the negative rating from the local MTA and would start their evaluation of the sender from that perspective. --- summarizing the summary --- The important characteristics of this solution are: - End users ultimately define the nature of abuse (spam or otherwise) within their local context, which includes their immediate provider. - Abuse can be detected more accurately and sensitively because multiple systems across the Internet are involved in the detection process. - Broad defensive actions against abuse are enabled. - Individual processing costs are reduced significantly by leveraging network effects. (For example, only one well trusted system need detect a virus for an entire group of systems to reject contact from that source. The detection must only occur once, not once for each system. This leverage also applies to content rejection of spam whereby systems with very similar policies might adopt a block after unwanted material is detected on a well trusted system (unless a local policy forces an exception) This is true if the spam detection is a person rejecting the message or an automated system of heuristics or some other policy mechanism). - Any protective response against abuse is driven as close to the source as possible thereby protecting the widest possible area of the network and significantly reducing the possibility of damage or other costs. - Administrators close to the source of an abuse are given strong real time data that can help them identify policy violations and take appropriate actions (legal or otherwise) within their local framework. This might be particularly important where legal actions are considered. Note that system operators overseas who consistently allow abuse without acting effectively will automatically be rated poorly by systems implementing these protocols... that may well result in their effective removal from the network as broad policies develop to reject their network - this puts a very specific spin on the economics of network service operation, content publication, and otherwise. - The system is extremely difficult to compromise or corrupt because there is no single point of failure and every node is under constant observation by other peers. If a node becomes compromised then it's peers will reject it based on their local policies and can even be made sensitive to this possibility by sharing their observations... A compromised node would be seen as "losing trust" with all of the other peers simultaneously and so each peer could be programmed to be ultra sensitive to this condition. In any case failure can only degrade the system to the degree allowed by all local policies - so there should be no possibility for a large scale failure scenario. - The system automatically adapts to policy changes... If a peer changes it's policy and that policy is no longer compatible with your local policy than you will reduce that peer's trust rating until you eventually drop it from your COT. That does not mean that you won't accept content from that system (provided that content doesn't violate your policy) but it does mean that you will not accept that system's policy recommendations nor seek it's advice on new contacts. ... There is a lot to this, I hope that the above description provides a good starting point... _M PS: I am working on papers to describe these concepts in more depth and more clearly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 18:46:07 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24556 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RMjfu09656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:45:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1yP-0002Vf-Ee for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:45:41 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24533; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1xm-0002Nf-Il; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1xY-0002N4-Bj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:44:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24502 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1xV-0006xO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:44:45 -0400 Received: from 000-256-240.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.240.209] helo=68.27.240.209) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1xI-0006xC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:44:33 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627184230.00ba6828@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] What ISPs do about infected computers? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:42:35 -0400 I recently ran across the following email which came from an ISP responding to a complaint about an infected system on their network issued by DShield (http://www.dshield.org/): ---------snip------------ FightBack Responses of the Week Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:16:03 +0200 > This is an abuse notice meaning that one of your machines might > be infected with a virus and is trying to infect other machines. > > See http://www.dshield.org/ for more information We don't care, the major issue is that we don't want to receive this kind of mail, because we're a large ISP and we have no control about our multiple clients and their Windows systems. Your mail was annoying, so we simply filtered it out. We know that many of them are infected even if we don't receive your mail. ---------snip------------ Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 18:54:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24808 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RMs9t13974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W26b-0003dJ-Lm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24787; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W26Y-00071I-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W26S-00071F-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W26T-0003aE-L6; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W25z-0003SA-JH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:53:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24768 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W25w-000710-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:53:28 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W25l-00070i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:53:17 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5RMqctD017489; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:52:38 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21585; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:52:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16124.51894.120066.154747@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch In-Reply-To: <200306270227.h5R2Rvki001126@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <16123.41844.4302.544562@world.std.com> <200306270227.h5R2Rvki001126@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:52:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 26, 2003 at 20:27 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > > From: Barry Shein > > > ... > > > > What if such an account as you describe, honestly, would cost $100/mo > > > > or more, w/o connectivity fees? From: Vernon Schryver >I'd be very happy to hear an accounting of those costs, but not >insulting hyperbole of $100/month/user. Vernon seems to be having trouble with the subjunctive. WOULD cost, that's a hypothetical future. Have you anything of actual value to say to everyone here? Remember, this isn't a snippy little bar conversation just between the two of us. You're taking up others' valuable time with the straw men, willful misunderstandings, and other sleazy argumentation which I don't think is convincing anyone that you're very bright. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:06:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25261 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RN5aB16327 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:05:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2Hg-0004FG-9F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:05:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25243; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2H7-00044c-5W; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2Gw-00044H-19 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:04:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25202 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2Gs-00075Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:04:46 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2Gh-00075N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:04:35 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5RMmoJR018293; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:48:50 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20873; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:48:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16124.51663.132567.690736@world.std.com> To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Why sender-pays is nonsense except in the Hotmail model In-Reply-To: <200306270154.h5R1stw9025556@calcite.rhyolite.com> References: <200306270154.h5R1stw9025556@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:48:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is what's known as a classic straw man, Vernon. You set up a really dumb model for bulk-sender-pays, and then proceed to prove to everyone that it's dumb. Feel free, but please leave my name off it. I never described any such thing and I agree, what you describe would be dumb. -b On June 26, 2003 at 19:54 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote: > This FTC business is an excellent case study of why sender-pays > makes sense only in the restricted sense of Hotmail's model (if there). > > Imagine that there were a bulk-sender-pays system in place. Assume > that all of what I claim are insurmountable problems are somehow > resolved. > > Now comes the FTC commission with an anticipated mailing of > 250,000,000 mesages. > > Barry says "None of my users will receive those confirmation > messages unless you pay me to deliver them." > > The FTC says, "Ok, none of your users will receive their confirmation > messages. You might want to let them know that as a consequence > their world.std.com addresses will not be entered on the FTC's do > not spam list, but if not, that's ok too." > > I don't know how Barry might respond, but I suspect that many of > his customers would not be pleased and will switch to an ISP that > does not participate in the bulk-mail-sender-settlements system. > > Variations of that story fit every other case where the bulk mail is > wanted, whether FTC DNS confirmations, CNN "news alerts," or dirty > pictures. The only cases where Barry can get his own customers to go > along with a bland refusal of bulk senders to pay is when the mail is > unwanted by his customers. Thus, all providers of solicited or non-spam > bulk mail will blandly refuse to join the sender-pays party. Sender-pays > devolves into senders paying to have unwanted mail delivered. On the > plausible side of the spectrum, we have advertising pushed on AOL and > Hotmail users. At the other end, we have the silly notion of spammers > being voluntarily paying. > > > Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:21:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24067 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RMXcR02294 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1mk-0000an-8q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24017; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1jX-0007VW-27; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W1SB-0006Jd-7g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22507 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1S7-0006h2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:20 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W1Rx-0006gv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:09 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ANE87194; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-223-223.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.223.223]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJO76000; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <000d01c33cf9$2f661b90$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alan DeKok wrote: > going to full client & server certificates with whitelists, > RMX, challenge-responses, temporary/signed addresses, etc.=20 > would obviously get rid of most of the spam... as well as=20 > most non-spam email. The difficulty is finding the balance. I think you're being too extreme in your analysis here. Even if the various systems you list are used, there is no reason (except for challenge/response) that we need to assume that the failure of a system to support one or another method would cause mail to be discarded. Such mail can be put into a "suspect" or "gray" inbox -- making it a bit harder to get to, but still not getting rid of it. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:29:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25928 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RNTHT23456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2eb-00066E-4v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25892; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2eY-0007Kf-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2eS-0007KX-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2eL-0005xr-Mz; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2eD-0005wV-PT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:28:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25792 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2Uf-0007C2-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:19:02 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2UU-0007Bw-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:18:51 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5RNGVtD015151; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:16:31 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26034; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16124.53326.946533.799165@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120912.00babb10@std5.imagineis.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120912.00babb10@std5.imagineis.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:16:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 27, 2003 at 12:11 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > >Telling people to unhook the bell on their phone (boy I must be old to > >even think of that) doesn't quite address the latter issue. > > Then according to you, how is spam different from a DDOS attack were > thousands of computers start spewing packets? If both problems are similar, Um, when have you ever seen a DDOS attack with thousands of computers are spewing packets? Do you have an example? Also, what service is being denied? > then perhaps we need to look into what methods are currently in place to > block DDOS attacks and we can reuse the same methods here for spam. Except it's not a DDOS attack, except as a broad-sweeping (and useful) metaphor. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:29:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25930 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RNTHi23473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2eb-00066W-FQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25893; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2eY-0007Kh-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2eS-0007KY-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2eL-0005wl-1a; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2dv-0005wC-PH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:28:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25746 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2Yl-0007FG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:23:15 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2YX-0007Da-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:23:02 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5RN6SdC010895 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:06:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306272306.h5RN6SdC010895@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <000c01c33cf7$e4e1ae50$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:06:28 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Bob Wyman" > ... The > subject discussed was how do you prove that a message was sent by a > specific *server*. The key to simplification here is that the server > will have a DNS record and that DNS record can have SVR records > associated with it. ... Ok, but why do you care about servers instead of persons? I don't care how legitimate mail gets into my mailbox. I also don't care how many signatures are associated with a server that sends spam my way. It sounds as if you are making the familiar assumption that every legitimate sender transmits only via a small number of SMTP clients. That assumption would vastly simplify solving the spam problem, but it would also vastly change non-technical aspects of the mail system. From another angle, why is it any harder for a spammer to get a signed, throw-away domain name than to get a throw-away personal or other certificate? Some of the ostensibly Chinese spammers are disclosing several dozen new domain names in my spam traps every day. What difference would it make if they had signatures to go along with their domain names? Yes, most of these spammers seem to be forging sender names (in the real sense, not in the too familiar bogus sense of "forge"), but I don't understand why. They could as effectively use their new domain names as senders including using signatures. I suspect that within a day or so of the first appearance of their domain names in URLs in spam, those domain names appear in comemrcial body filters. Applying Barry Shein's analogy, how does this stop the bad guys from ringing all of the phones in Manhattan? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:32:04 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26097 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RNU9624477 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:30:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2fR-0006Md-Aq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:30:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25984; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2fP-0007MY-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:30:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2fJ-0007MS-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:30:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2fJ-0006Es-PZ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2eL-0005wm-2G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:29:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25811 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:28:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2TE-0007BH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:17:32 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2T3-0007BE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:17:21 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5RN1itD028775; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:01:44 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23190; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:01:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16124.52439.895213.913633@world.std.com> To: "Peter Kay" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:01:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How is any of this consent/filtering related to the usual IETF purpose such as protocol documents (RFCs, etc), network engineering, and not just some ad hoc User Interface Engineering? It seems to me the consent proposals (getting any attention) thus far require no change to any existing protocols or standards, and don't seem to imply any new protocols or standards. Where in the stack would any of this fit and why does this group need to be involved? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:49:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26704 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RNn9P00860 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2xp-0000Dm-Ra for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26676; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2xn-0007V0-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2xi-0007Un-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2wj-0008Mv-SU; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2we-0008MM-MI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:47:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26603 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2wN-0007Tu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:47:39 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2wC-0007To-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:47:29 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5RNlMcU016122 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:47:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306272347.h5RNlMcU016122@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:47:22 -0600 (MDT) >From: Barry Shein >Vernon seems to be having trouble with the subjunctive. > >WOULD cost, that's a hypothetical future. > >Have you anything of actual value to say to everyone here? Remember, >this isn't a snippy little bar conversation just between the two of >us. > >You're taking up others' valuable time with the straw men, willful >misunderstandings, and other sleazy argumentation which I don't think >is convincing anyone that you're very bright. My mistake. I thought you were saying that a mail account costs $100/month/user. In re-reading your words in https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05793.html and https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05803.html I still get the impression that you are saying that $100 is not far from the current situation. What is the current approximate cost? Isn't $10-$40 retail price-point for accounts and so how can current costs be more than $1/month/user? Yes, this is not a "snippy little bar conversation." It's also not consciousness raising rallye to get us charged up about fighting spam by considering how bad things could get if they went 100 times past the possible. It's not even a venue to blow off steam from the frustrations of dealing with spammers. As such, talk about ISP costs should related to reality and doomsday scenarios about ISP costs must be plausible. It's good that we agree that my model of sender pays in https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05804.html is a bad idea. I thought my example was close to your model, but I'm evidently wrong. What is your model? All I know for certain about it is that it - will prevent "$100/mo or more" costs for mail accounts. - would have the FTC pay you to deliver those DNC confirmations. Since we're not wasting everyone's time here, it would be good to consider the sender pays model you envision that gets you paid by the FTC as you said in https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05771.html Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 19:50:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26748 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5RNnmL01426 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2yR-0000Mv-W3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26722; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2yQ-0007VS-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2yK-0007VP-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2xg-00009G-Tl; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W2xQ-00007F-It for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:48:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26617 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2x9-0007UJ-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:48:27 -0400 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W2ww-0007Tc-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:48:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 52704 invoked by uid 1013); 27 Jun 2003 23:46:26 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Barry Shein Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <20030628014626.C45744@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120912.00babb10@std5.imagineis.com> <16124.53326.946533.799165@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <16124.53326.946533.799165@world.std.com>; from bzs@world.std.com on Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:16:30PM -0400 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:46:26 +0200 On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:16:30PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > Um, when have you ever seen a DDOS attack with thousands of computers > are spewing packets? Do you have an example? http://www.caida.org/projects/dns-analysis/oct02dos.xml DDos against the root DNS servers http://www.brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=92 SQL/Slammer took down half of Korea and Bank of America There are a lot more examples... \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 20:10:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27346 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S0AGg07780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W3IG-0001zq-KD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27323; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3IE-0007eu-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3I9-0007er-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W3I1-0001v6-MQ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W3HX-0001uh-Vg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:09:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27306 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3HW-0007eT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:09:30 -0400 Received: from bay2-f60.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.60] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3HL-0007bx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:09:19 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:04:56 -0700 Received: from 62.252.196.198 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:04:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.196.198] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_it@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 00:04:56.0252 (UTC) FILETIME=[E84737C0:01C33D08] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:04:55 +0000 Hi Everyone, There is a new system under development to prevent spam across the Internet. It is known as 'GIEIS'. The system is being designed to prevent 100% of spam, not just limit its effects. The system is the conceptual design stage and is being prepared for an Internet draft. We are looking for comments, suggestions, possible weaknesses of the system. Also, I would like it pointed out that this system DOES cope with bulk email from legitimate businesses and mailing lists. To view the system please follow this link, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Please let me know what you think. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 20:31:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27853 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S0Ul112946 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:30:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W3c7-0003Mj-Ho for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:30:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27826; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3c5-0007mB-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:30:45 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3bz-0007lx-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:30:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W3bN-0003Ei-8v; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W3ao-0003EM-Op for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:29:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27796 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:29:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3am-0007ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:29:24 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W3ab-0007la-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:29:13 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2491157; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:28:02 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Cc: "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:27:30 -0400 At 11:27 AM -0700 6/27/03, Howard Roth wrote: >Overview of Email Sender Validation Effort to reduce SPAM: > >Efforts to validate the sender of an email message will help reduce >the dissemination of unwanted email. We propose a specific >methodology to address this issue by using a simple method based on >a process that responds to a new message with specially coded >request for validation message. This specially coded message is >sent to the "reply to" address. The message initiating mail server >receives this reply and responds with an acknowledgement to the In what way is this any functionally any different than RMX or other similar server-is-authorized-to-send-mail protocols? Unlike those, this requires maintaining state and uses a heavyweight protocol. It does have the advantage of not requiring a live internet server to do verification. But it has the disadvantage of requiring millions of people to change how they send email (most especially users of web-mail services). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 21:16:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28937 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S1GFx23575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4K7-00068A-4P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28924; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4K4-0000Ex-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4Jy-0000Eu-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4Js-00066H-N1; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4Im-000618-KY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:15:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28907 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4Ik-0000EW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:14:50 -0400 Received: from h-d1d1248a.digitalpod.com ([209.209.36.138] helo=yaweno.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4IZ-0000EO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:14:39 -0400 Received: from apocalypse [206.170.148.241] by yaweno.com (SMTPD32-7.03) id A9F7F72009E; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:05:59 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Howard Roth" To: "Kee Hinckley" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:09:26 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The idea behind this concept is to not modify current software, but provide additional stand-alone software that provides sender accountability. RMX requires a modification to DNS to allow for the match between the sending IP address and the 'reply to' server IP address. I feel adoption of an added piece of software is more likely to occur in a shorter period of time than by substantially modifying existing MTA or DNS software. That doesn't rule out the more efficient methods, like RMX, being adopted as a long-term solution. Basically, the intent is for this method to be completely transparent to the users and therefore have no impact on web-mail services. I am familiar with my web-mail services using Ipswitch mail server software, but there may be other issues that you are alluding to that I may not be aware of. I also understand that there are network utilization issues with the added messages, but if sender accountability occurs we will see a significant drop in overall usage by reducing SPAM. As well, the intent is to make these additional validation messages as small as possible. Howard Roth The NetTech Group, Inc. 11 Airport Blvd., Suite 200 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone - 650-871-7209 Fax - 650-871-7219 Email - hroth@tngi.com -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Kee Hinckley Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:28 PM To: hroth@tngi.com Cc: 'Asrg@Ietf. Org' Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability At 11:27 AM -0700 6/27/03, Howard Roth wrote: >Overview of Email Sender Validation Effort to reduce SPAM: > >Efforts to validate the sender of an email message will help reduce >the dissemination of unwanted email. We propose a specific >methodology to address this issue by using a simple method based on >a process that responds to a new message with specially coded >request for validation message. This specially coded message is >sent to the "reply to" address. The message initiating mail server >receives this reply and responds with an acknowledgement to the In what way is this any functionally any different than RMX or other similar server-is-authorized-to-send-mail protocols? Unlike those, this requires maintaining state and uses a heavyweight protocol. It does have the advantage of not requiring a live internet server to do verification. But it has the disadvantage of requiring millions of people to change how they send email (most especially users of web-mail services). -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 21:19:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29017 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S1JOS24757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4NA-0006RE-51 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28993; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4N7-0000G4-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:21 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4N1-0000Fm-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4Mn-0006IS-Kx; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4MU-0006IA-Io for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:18:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28982 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4MS-0000Fd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:18:40 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4MH-0000Fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:18:29 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2491254; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:18:26 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Mark McCarron" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:17:06 -0400 >Email transmission has several stages, the majority are >transparent to the end user. > >1. The Email server makes a request to begin transmitting >by logging onto the 'EAS'. Don't you mean Email client? >2. This is passed to the ISP's 'EAS' which, results in transmission >of a graphic with obscured word on it to the client. >3. The client enters the word into a prompt and the first email is >sent to the 'EAS'. You make no statement about how often I have to respond to this graphic. Or how any of this works with automatically generated messages. My mailbox has hundreds of automated messages in it every day--generated by support systems, cron tasks and other automated systems at various machines around the internet. You can't cut that off. You keep talking about ISPs as though they are the only people who run mail servers. You are describing a central database that needs to manage information about millions of mail servers from countries around the world. It has to have a dispute mechanism for complaints, and it has the power to put any of those companies out of business. What government or company would cede that kind of control to an unregulated organization? Also, you have a huge loophole in non-commercial mailing lists. What keeps spammers from repeatedly signing up as non-commercial mailing lists, sending out millions of messages, and then creating a new list. Additionally, you have vastly underestimated the cost and infrastructure requirements if you think you are going to have money left over. And of course, it suffers from the standard adoption system. Until the majority of the world is using the system, you can't block email that doesn't use it. Therefore early adopters have to suffer through the major pain of using the system, but get no benefit. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 21:35:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29338 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S1Z9i27555 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4cP-0007AM-M1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29333; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4cM-0000Kp-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4cH-0000Km-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4cG-000741-UP; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:35:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W4bg-00073i-JV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:34:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29319 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4bO-0000Ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:34:06 -0400 Received: from mail007.syd.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.20.180]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W4bD-0000KQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:33:56 -0400 Received: from co3001591-a.troy.rollo.name (c16986.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.29.162.99]) by mail007.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5S1X1g00381 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:33:02 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030628112840.00de4590@> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Troy Rollo Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:33:01 +1000 At 21:17 27/06/03 -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote: [Several good reasons why the proposal is not "the solution" snipped] You missed a couple: It locks out the seriously visually impaired. There is no part of this concept, nor in the combination, that is "new" in the sense that it hasn't been raised previously. -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 22:03:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29824 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S23Ex00527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W53Z-00008Q-Vy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29818; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W53W-0000TN-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W53R-0000TK-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W53N-00005L-7g; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W52k-0008Vp-20 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:02:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29793 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W52h-0000T2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:02:19 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W52W-0000St-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:02:08 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2491332; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:01:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: From: Kee Hinckley Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Cc: "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:01:30 -0400 At 6:09 PM -0700 6/27/03, Howard Roth wrote: >The idea behind this concept is to not modify current software, but provide >additional stand-alone software that provides sender accountability. RMX In what way does this not modify existing software? The MTAs have to be modified to support it, correct? >Basically, the intent is for this method to be completely transparent to the >users and therefore have no impact on web-mail services. I am familiar with >my web-mail services using Ipswitch mail server software, but there may be >other issues that you are alluding to that I may not be aware of. The issue is that people send mail "from" one domain while using the mail servers of another. This is done all the time for perfectly legitimate reasons. Not only is it done on an individual level, it is also done regularly in mass commercial mailings (which are sent by one company on behalf of another). Using the "reply to" to authenticate breaks all of that. Yahoo users can only send mail using Yahoo's web mail. Macromedia can't send mail from "support@macromedia.com" using mx0's mail servers, and so on. This can be avoided to some degree if you use the from address in the mail envelope, since that can easily be different than the headers. However then you need to deal with issues regarding bounces. In addition, no matter which header you choose to use, you need to figure out how it will work with mail relayed by a mailing list. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 22:27:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00382 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S2RHN06133 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W5Qq-0001aq-Vs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00365; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5Qn-0000a6-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5Qh-0000a3-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W5Qb-0001Yn-4E; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W5QX-0001YZ-UA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:26:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00353 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5QF-0000Zp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:26:39 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5Q4-0000ZW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:26:28 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip149-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.149]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AB5E36A20 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +4400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030627222558.A2360@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:30:54AM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:25:59 -0400 On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:30:54AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > What about interoperability? How will different email providers > decided who is responsible for paying what? Also, who will enforce > such structure? Postal services of many countries use a UN affiliated > organization called the International Postal Union which settles > these matters. Is it good to put control into one body? It doesn't have to be one body; it can be several companies. Say a consortium which receives 50 cents per email, and the originating company gets 25 cents per email. (This will discourage spammers from playing shell games with fake ISPs). The average person can obtain read-only accounts, with an option to send one-off emails for a dollar each. It will complement regular email, not replace it. Something along the lines of UPS/Fedex/Purolater. Too expensive for everyday correspondence but just right for files that absolutely *HAVE* to get there. > What about the issue of spam in Personal email? The main reason for my proposal was to provide a reliable alternative without businesses having to lobby for "must-carry" legislation. One size does *NOT* fit all. The business concept of guranteed-delivery-come-hell-or-high-water would destroy personal email if spammers got guaranteed delivery. The "personal" level of blocking is anathema to business practices. Once we ensure that "personal email" is *NOT* required to be business-level robust, then... a) filtering/blocklisting is less likely to be outlawed for "personal email" because businesses will have a business alternative b) individuals will be more likely to use filters/blocklists if businesses they want to deal with do have a reliable alternative. I haven't specified the exact mechanism for separation between "personal email" and "business email". It'll probably be separate domains and/or IP addresses. As another poster on this thread has pointed out... > Look at the Automotive industry, for some years they have had closed > large scale "extranets" in form of ANX, ENX and JNX. Internet-like > networks with IPSec encryption as standard and trusts between them. > In US it seems that also Health Care operators have bought access from > ANX. Set up mail to traverse this net and you can follow the traffic > in the operator logs, who connected to who for smtp. Disconnect this > mail from Internet and you have no spam this way. So my proposal isn't really 100% original. It's an extrapolation of the concept of existing private business networks. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 22:53:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00951 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S2rLH12115 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W5q4-00039K-1x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00944; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5pz-0000lH-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5pt-0000lE-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W5pl-000356-98; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W5oq-00034d-Ir for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:52:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00912 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5om-0000kl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:52:00 -0400 Received: from 226.48.93.66.in-addr.rsbx.net ([66.93.48.226] helo=mail.rsbx.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W5oZ-0000kF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:51:47 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA32382 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:51:04 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> From: Raymond S Brand X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17.crypt i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------62BEAB29EF5EE2F09945EB32" Subject: [Asrg] 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:51:04 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------62BEAB29EF5EE2F09945EB32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This proposal is designed to deal with the problem of malware afflicted sending/relaying mail to internet hosts directly. Unlike the DMP/SPF proposals, it does not modify the envelope or require changes to SMTP. I missed the June 23 cut off for internet-drafts submission, so the actual submission of this document will happen on or after July 18. Raymond S Brand --------------62BEAB29EF5EE2F09945EB32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="draft-brand-drip-00.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-brand-drip-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network Working Group R. S. Brand Internet-Draft L. Sherzer Expires: December 23, 2003 June 24, 2003 Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) draft-brand-drip-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay mail as a domain name. The protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections from IP addresses not authorized to use a domain name. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 1] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Designating Relays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Designation Record Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Default Designation Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 IPv4 Designation Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 IPv6 Designation Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5 Designation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. MTA Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 DRIP Authorization Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 DRIP Status Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 DRIP Status Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4 MTA Operation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Dictatorial Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19 Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 2] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 1. Introduction The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. 1.1 Motivation Source verification information transmitted as part of a mail message, such as digital signatures, can permit MTAs, MDAs, and MUAs to verify that a messages is associated with a sender or gateway. However, those methods do not prevent malware authors from: o Embedding a verifiable (signed) message in the malware. o Embedding a verifier generator (private key) in the malware. Either technique permits malware afflicted machines to send verifiable messages. DRIP is designed to force malware authors to send the malware generated mail through the relays the afflicted systems are already configured and authorized use. Operators of those relays are very likely to have an existing relationship with the operators of the afflicted systems and can act to limit the damage to the internet caused by the malware. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 3] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 1.2 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. DNS Domain Name System. See [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]. IPv4 Internet Protocol version 4. IPv6 Internet Protocol version 6. ISP Internet Service Provider. Malware Malicious software. See [RFC2828]. MDA Mail Delivery Agent. Mail Relay See MTA. MTA Mail Transfer Agent. MUA Mail User Agent. Relay See MTA. SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. See [RFC2821] Standardese A peculiar dialect employed by authors of standards. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 4] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 2. Overview Domain name owners identify and record the IP addresses that are authorized to relay mail as their domain name. How the IP addresses are identified is beyond the scope of this document, but will likely involve consultation with the postmaster for the domain name. The IP address authorization records are recorded in DNS as described in Section 3. Server MTAs verify the domain name the client MTA submitted as identification, by querying for the IP address authorization records recorded by the domain name owner. Based on the result of the query, the server MTA can determine if the domain name is a DRIP participant. If the domain name is a DRIP participant, the result of the query will also indicate if the IP address of the client is authorized to use the domain name to relay mail. Section 4 specifies the operation of server MTAs following this protocol. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 5] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3. Designating Relays Domain name owners record the designated relays by adding a specifically formatted DNS record for each IP address that is authorized to use a domain name in the SMTP HELO or EHLO commands. Default records are also added to indicate DRIP participation by the domain name, and that the IP address used in the query is NOT authorized to use the domain name to relay mail. 3.1 Designation Record Template The template for the DNS records is: ${IPS}.${IPV}.relays._email_.${DOMAIN}. IN ${TYPE} ${IP} With: ${IPS} The textual representation of the IP address. ${IPV} The textual representation of the IP protocol version used. ${DOMAIN} The domain name used in the SMTP HELO or EHLO commands. ${TYPE} The DNS record type corresponding to the IP protocol version of the IP address. ${IP} The IP address. See [RFC2782] for a discussion of the need for the underscores. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 6] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3.2 Default Designation Records The following default or "wildcard" records are added for each domain name and defined IP protocol version. These records, when returned as a result of a DRIP query, indicate DRIP participation by the domain name and that IP address used in the query is NOT authorized to use the domain name in the SMTP HELO or EHLO commands. *.${IPV}.relays._email_.${DOMAIN}. IN ${TYPE} ${IPZ} Where ${IPZ} depends on the IP protocol version. A default record returned as the result of a DRIP query is identified by the value of the record, ${IPZ}, which is defined for each IP protocol version and corresponds to the "unspecified address". Both IPv4 and IPv6 default designation records SHOULD be added for each domain name. 3.3 IPv4 Designation Records For IP version 4 addresses, the following applies: ${IPS} Textual representation of the IPv4 address of the Designated Relay in "dotted quad", also known as "dotted decimal", notation. This textual representation was chosen to be easy for both the wetware components and the software components to implement the protocol. The textual representation of the IPv4 loopback address, 127.0.0.1, is 127.0.0.1 ${IPV} "IPv4". ${TYPE} "A". ${IP} The IP address of the the Designated Relay. ${IPZ} "0.0.0.0", the IPv4 "unspecified address". Chosen because it can not be a valid client IP address when used with TCP. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 7] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3.4 IPv6 Designation Records For IP version 6 addresses, the following applies: ${IPS} Textual representation of the IPv6 address of the Designated Relay formatted as a sequence of 8 16bit words separated by dots. Each word is represented by 4 hexadecimal digits. The words and the hexadecimal digits of a word are in network byte order. This IPv6 address representation is similar to the representation in [RFC3513] except that the colons have been replaced with dots, and that leading zeros MUST be included. This textual representation was chosen to be easy for both the wetware components and the software components to implement the protocol. The textual representation of the IPv6 loopback address, ::1, is: 0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001 The textual representation of the IPv6 address 2002:c000:201::1234 is: 2002.c000.0201.0000.0000.0000.0000.1234 ${IPV} "IPv6". ${TYPE} "AAAA". ${IP} The IP address of the the Designated Relay. ${IPZ} "::", the IPv6 "unspecified address". Chosen because it can not be a valid client IP address when used with TCP. MTAs with IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses [RFC3513] SHOULD also have an IPv4 DRIP record for the IPv4 part of each IPv4-compatible IPv6 address. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 8] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3.5 Designation Examples 3.5.1 Designation Example 1 The owner of the domain name EXAMPLE.COM would add the following DNS records to the EXAMPLE.COM zone to indicate that the domain name EXAMPLE.COM is NOT valid for use in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. Default Designation Records: *.IPv4.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 0.0.0.0 *.IPv6.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN AAAA :: IPv4 Designation Records: None. IPv6 Designation Records: None. 3.5.2 Designation Example 2 The owner of the domain name M.EXAMPLE.COM would add the following DNS records to the M.EXAMPLE.COM zone to indicate that ONLY the IPv4 addresses 192.0.2.10, 192.0.2.11, and 127.0.0.1 are authorized to use the domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. Default Designation Records: *.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 0.0.0.0 *.IPv6.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN AAAA :: IPv4 Designation Records: 192.0.2.10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10 192.0.2.11.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.11 127.0.0.1.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 127.0.0.1 IPv6 Designation Records: None. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 9] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 4. MTA Operation Server MTAs use the IP address of the client MTA from the SMTP connection and the domain name, which the client submitted as identification in the SMTP HELO or EHLO command, to verify that the IP address is authorized to use the domain name to relay mail. The process for doing this is: 1. Attempt to retrieve the DRIP authorization record for the IP address and the domain name via DNS. 2. Examine the result of the DNS retrieval attempt to determine the DRIP status. 3. Continue or terminate the SMTP transaction based on the DRIP status. DRIP authorization checks may be deferred until the MAIL command in the SMTP transaction or not be performed at all for SMTP transactions where relay authorization schemes are used. Examples of relay authorization schemes are, an ISP's use of the client's IP address to allow only the ISP's customers to relay; or a corporate server MTA using SMTP AUTH to allow roaming senders to relay. 4.1 DRIP Authorization Retrieval The DRIP authorization record to retrieve is the DNS record, as described in Section 3.1, corresponding to the IP address and domain name that the client MTA identified itself as. IPv6 server MTAs MUST perform the DRIP authorization retrieval using the IPv4 address of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address" [RFC3513] when clients connect from IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. 4.2 DRIP Status Determination A successful retrieval of a single record of the appropriate type with the IP address in the record matching the IP address of the client has a DRIP status of DRIP_OK. The requirement that the IP address in the authorization record be the IP address of the client, is to prevent malware authors from easily designating the entire IP address space as authorized to relay as a given domain name. A successful retrieval of a single record of the appropriate type with the IP address in the record not matching the IP address of the client has a DRIP status of DRIP_NOT_OK. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 10] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Any type of temporary DNS retrieval or network failure has a DRIP status of DRIP_TEMP_FAIL. Any other type of DNS result, such as a permanent error, multiple records retrieved, retrieved record not of the correct record type, etc., has a DRIP status of DRIP_UNKNOWN. 4.3 DRIP Status Meanings The DRIP statuses have the following meanings: DRIP_OK This indicates that the IP address of the client is one of the authorized IP addresses for the domain name to use to relay mail. The SMTP transaction may continue. DRIP_NOT_OK This indicates that the IP address of the client is not one of the authorized IP addresses for the given domain name to use to relay mail. The SMTP transaction SHOULD be terminated with a permanent failure, 5XX, reply code. DRIP_TEMP_FAIL This indicates that the lookup could not be completed at this time. The SMTP transaction SHOULD be terminated with a temporary failure, 4XX, reply code. DRIP_UNKNOWN This indicates that the given domain name is not a DRIP participant. Local policy of the server MTA determines if the SMTP transaction should continue or not. A RECOMMENDED local policy is for the server MTA to, iteratively, use the parent domain names to perform more DRIP authorization retrievals. If any of those retrievals result in either a DRIP_OK status or a DRIP_NOT_OK status, the server MTA SHOULD assume that the client is NOT authorized to relay mail as the given domain name. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 11] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 4.4 MTA Operation Examples The following examples assume that the DNS records described in Section 3.5 exist and that no other DRIP related DNS records exist for the domain names used. 4.4.1 MTA Operation Example 1 A server MTA accepts an SMTP connection from IP address 192.0.2.10 and the client identifies itself as M.EXAMPLE.COM. 1. The server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record 192.0.2.10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10 via a DNS lookup. 2. The DNS lookup retrieves a single A record with the IP address 192.0.2.10. 3. Since only a single record was retrieved, it was of the correct type, and IP address in the record is the IP address of the client, the DRIP status is DRIP_OK. 4. The SMTP transaction continues. 4.4.2 MTA Operation Example 2 A server MTA accepts an SMTP connection from IP address 192.0.2.99 and the client identifies itself as S.EXAMPLE.COM. 1. The server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record 192.0.2.99.IPv4.relays._email_.S.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 via a DNS lookup. 2. The DNS lookup results in a "Name Error", indicating that the record does not exist. 3. Since the DNS lookup resulted in a permanent lookup error, the the DRIP status is DRIP_UNKNOWN and the server uses local policy to determine if the SMTP transaction should continue or not. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 12] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 4. If the server follows the RECOMMENDED local policy of performing DRIP authorization retrievals using parent domain names when a DRIP status of DRIP_UNKNOWN is encountered, the server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record 192.0.2.99.IPv4.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 via a DNS lookup. 5. The DNS lookup retrieves a single A record with the IP address 0.0.0.0. 6. Since only a single record was retrieved, and the record was of the correct type, and the IP address in the record is not the IP address of the client, the DRIP status is DRIP_NOT_OK. 7. Because this was a DRIP authorization retrieval of a parent domain and the status is of this retrieval is DRIP_OK or DRIP_NOT_OK, the server SHOULD assume that the client is NOT authorized to relay mail as the given domain name. 8. The server terminates the SMTP transaction with a permanent failure, 5XX, reply code. 4.4.3 MTA Operation Example 3 A server MTA accepts an SMTP connection from IP address ::FFFF:C000:263 and the client identifies itself as S.EXAMPLE.COM. Because the IP address of the client is the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address of 192.0.2.99, the server MUST perform the same operations as in Section 4.4.2. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 13] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 5. Security Considerations This method relies on DNS to verify relay authorization and as such is vulnerable to the security issues of DNS. However, this is no different than mail, in general, being vulnerable to DNS security issues. Sites concerned about this should investigate implementing [RFC2401] and/or [RFC2535]. A likely, and intended, response of malware authors to wide spread adoption of DRIP is to search afflicted systems for MUA settings and use the configured gateways, and possibly identities and credentials, to mail their payloads. It is hoped that the gateway operators will notice the undesirable traffic and be able to do something about it. The gateway operators already have a relationship with the operator(s) of the afflicted systems and are in a much better position, than the internet at large, to be able to correct the problem. DRIP is intended and designed to help protect your systems from the malware afflicted systems of others. Not to protect your systems from your own malware afflicted systems. Sites concerned about this should investigate the use of malware detectors on their systems. While not a security consideration, DRIP does not provide any assurances to the server MTA that the mail being relayed from the client is not SPAM; only that the IP address of the client MTA is authorized to relay mail as the domain name, the client identified itself as, in the SMTP EHLO or HELO command. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 14] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Normative References [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. [RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001. [RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 15] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Informative References [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1886] Thomson, S. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995. [RFC1925] Callon, R., "The Twelve Networking Truths", RFC 1925, April 1996. [RFC1983] Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983, August 1996. [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999. [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. [RFC2828] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, May 2000. Authors' Addresses Raymond S Brand P.O. Box 100486 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33310 US EMail: rsbx@acm.org URI: http://www.RSBX.com/ Laurence Sherzer P.O. Box 5072 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 US EMail: laurence@sherzer.net URI: http://www.sherzer.net/ Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 16] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Appendix A. Dictatorial Powers Any measure to control SPAM, if it is to be effective, must create or enhance the power of one or more entities involved in moving email from the source to the destination(s). The method described in this document enhances the ability of the domain name owner to control which MTAs may identify themselves as a domain name. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 17] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Appendix B. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Robert M. Bownes III, and Richard Rognlie. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 18] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 19] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 20] =0C --------------62BEAB29EF5EE2F09945EB32-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 23:26:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01393 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S3QIr18704 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6Lw-0004ra-U8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01371; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6Lu-0000rd-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6Lp-0000ra-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6Ll-0004oA-6W; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:26:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6LA-0004kc-1x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:25:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01325 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6L7-0000rE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:25:25 -0400 Received: from www.metlogic.com ([63.231.94.161]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6Kw-0000qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:25:14 -0400 Received: from privacynetworks.com (12-252-51-189.client.attbi.com [12.252.51.189]) by www.metlogic.com (8.12.5/linuxconf) with ESMTP id h5S3OgEl004887; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:24:43 -0600 Message-ID: <3EFD0C66.3060608@privacynetworks.com> From: Bill Thorson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away References: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151955.00bb9668@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:32:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 11:17 AM 6/27/2003 -0400, Chris Lewis wrote: > >> Bill Thorson wrote: >> >>> ASRG Group, >>> I've been working on smtp server software and have >>> noticed something very strange. We seem to have many >>> connections made, mostly at night, who connect to >>> port 25 and then disconnect right after the >>> 220 Server Ready message. I was believing that I >>> had a bug in my software but now I am wondering if >>> this is a bot of some type. Do spammers run bots >>> to search for and create lists of mail servers to >>> attack? Is this what I'm seeing? >> >> >> The SMTP "channel" is unbelievably dirty. >> >> On our spamtrap, we see machines making _thousands_ of transactions >> that consist of only: >> HELO somevalue >> QUIT > > > Have you considering the possibility that they are checking for > RMX/rDNS compliance? > Thanks for all the great ideas. It looks like I'm not alone with these types of unusual connections. What is RMX/rDNS? Bill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jun 27 23:49:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01890 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S3nCP23758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6i8-0006B7-RO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01877; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6i6-0000yd-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6i1-0000ya-00; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6hx-00069B-9d; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6hj-00068w-T0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:48:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01866 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6hh-0000yL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:48:45 -0400 Received: from bay2-f156.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.156] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6hW-0000xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:48:35 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:47:32 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.6 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:47:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.6] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_it@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 03:47:32.0729 (UTC) FILETIME=[015BDE90:01C33D28] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id XAA01868 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:47:32 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My responses are in the body of the message and I will reply to all posts= =20 through one large post. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system shown here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis The document is under development and represents a VERY basic overview of= =20 the system. Updates will be made to clearly demonstrate the system=20 including algorythmic runthroughs. All comments, suggestions and weaknes= ses=20 will be addressed and concerns dealt with. These will be added to the fi= nal=20 system and prepared for an Internet Draft. The next step after that will= be=20 for an RFC to be issued for the system. Thankyou for your feedback, it has been great and very helpful, Mark McCarron. >>Email transmission has several stages, the majority are=20 >>transparent to the end user. >> >>1. The Email server makes a request to begin transmitting by=20 >>logging onto the 'EAS'. > >Don't you mean Email client? > Mark's response: No. In that setup it was a spammer server attached through a proxy client= . =20 But it just as easily could have been. > >>2. This is passed to the ISP's 'EAS' which, results in transmission of = =20 >> a graphic with obscured word on it to the client. >>3. The client enters the word into a prompt and the first email is sent= =20 >> to the 'EAS'. > >You make no statement about how often I have to respond to this graphic.= =20 >Or how any of this works with automatically generated messages. My mail= box=20 >has hundreds of automated messages in it every day--generated by support= =20 >systems, cron tasks and other automated systems at various machines arou= nd=20 >the internet. You can't cut that off. > Mark's response: The graphic is for email clients such as Outlook express and Eudora, etc.= A=20 new graphic is downloaded for each email. The system has no intention of= =20 stopping legitimate email even automated systems. They just register wit= h=20 an 'EAS' provider and all mail is sent through it. Legitimate businesses= =20 will have to provide legal company registration details (such as reg.=20 company number, etc). They receive a special code, upon agreeing to a=20 legally binding 'Terms of Service agreement'. This code is then register= ed=20 with the 'GIEIS' central server. Any breach of the agreement, will resul= t=20 in services being restricted to that code and any OTHER code held by that= =20 company. That company will then have to raise the matter with both its I= SP=20 and 'GIEIS''s centre. From there, several resolutions are possible. A f= ine=20 can be imposed for the breach, letters of apology to those involved, and = in=20 severe cases completely stoppage of all email permanantly. >You keep talking about ISPs as though they are the only people who run m= ail=20 >servers. You are describing a central database that needs to manage=20 >information about millions of mail servers from countries around the wor= ld.=20 > It has to have a dispute mechanism for complaints, and it has the powe= r=20 >to put any of those companies out of business. What government or compan= y=20 >would cede that kind of control to an unregulated organization? Also, y= ou=20 >have a huge loophole in non-commercial mailing lists. What keeps spamme= rs=20 >from repeatedly signing up as non-commercial mailing lists, sending out=20 >millions of messages, and then creating a new list. Additionally, you h= ave=20 >vastly underestimated the cost and infrastructure requirements if you th= ink=20 >you are going to have money left over. > Mark's response: Excellent points. Let's deal with the first one, there is millions of ma= il=20 servers in the world, however, all these mail servers have one thing in=20 common, they are linked to the internet backbone via some form of ISP. T= his=20 is why I am referring to ISPs. Therefore, we take this common point and=20 utilise it. They must register their server with their ISP's 'EAS' and i= t=20 registers it with 'GIEIS'. Straight-forward enough. There will be a ful= l=20 dispute mechanism between all involved parties and the system will be an=20 independant body. If set up in partnership with the largest email and IS= P=20 providers, then the rest of the industry would be assured of its reputati= on,=20 furthermore, the system must operate within legal boundries. Mailing lis= ts=20 must be associated with a bonafide website, also they must contact 'GIEIS= '=20 directly for setup. A credit card will be required and a $1 (=A31) charg= e=20 will be made to it. Also, a mailing adress and telephone contact=20 information would be required. They will receive a written copy of the=20 'Terms of Service' which they must sign and send back to 'GIEIS'. Upon=20 reception 'GIEIS' will implement the account with their ISP. The emails=20 then sent will be analysed by heuristics. Each message will also be pars= ed=20 for HTML code, such as IMAGE tags and jpg, bmp images. As the majority o= f=20 mailing systems use either ASCII or UNICODE text only, spam can be detect= ed,=20 blocked and the offender's credit card billed with a fine. I have not=20 placed estimates on the cost of implementation. The industry is loosing = $12=20 Billion a year, even if the partnership spent $1 Billion per year (an=20 outragous amount) they would still be saving $11 Billion. The 'beancount= er'=20 (accountants) would love that. >And of course, it suffers from the standard adoption system. Until the=20 >majority of the world is using the system, you can't block email that=20 >doesn't use it. Therefore early adopters have to suffer through the maj= or=20 >pain of using the system, but get no benefit. Mark's response: True. However, there will most likely be a period of introduction, for=20 example 6 months. Then there will be a D-Day from which point, the syste= m=20 becomes exclusive. This will force the rest of the industry to adopt or=20 face not being able to communicate with other networks. The result of=20 non-compliance would be the loss of their customer base. You missed a couple: It locks out the seriously visually impaired. There is no part of this concept, nor in the combination, that is "new" in the sense that it hasn't been raised previously. Mark's response: This is addressed in the FAQ. There are several methods to help both the= =20 blind and severely visually impaired. We have not forgot about this high= ly=20 important client base. Such as a simple puzzle in brail, something that=20 would be difficult to automate for but simple enough for a human to do. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 00:05:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02083 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S45RZ27006 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6xr-00071V-40 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02070; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6xo-00010s-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:24 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6xj-00010m-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6xR-0006qz-Df; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W6wS-0006pr-Lg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:04:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02048 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6wB-00010i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:03:43 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W6w0-00010f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:03:32 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip27-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.27]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F066936948 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:03:12 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Editorial on spam by Bill Gates Message-ID: <20030628000311.B2360@m433> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D2276@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> <16120.55005.858753.147963@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <16120.55005.858753.147963@world.std.com>; from bzs@world.std.com on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:55:25PM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:03:11 -0400 On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:55:25PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote > > None of the O/S platforms in use today scores well on the security front. > > Nonsense, several score quite well if just reasonably configured and > administered (and I don't mean heroics.) I agree 100% with this, but it's really a motherhood statement. Today's major problem is newbies. They want to *USE* their computers, not *ADMINISTER* them. Actually, they *DON'T KNOW* how to administer systems. The question we should be asking is not how safe a well-administered system is; rather, how safe is a system out-of-the-box for an end-user not running any public servers? In that category, Mac wins hands-down. After I install Redhat Linux, I run "netstat -tupan" and use the output to tell me which services need to be shut down. After I've finished that and set up a paranoid iptables firewall behind an equally paranoid firewall ruleset on my Netgear router, my linux box is right up there with a Mac in terms of compromise resistance. > The problem is there is nothing you can do with any current windows > system to make it secure from viruses, short of active avoidance > (shut it off and it won't ever get a virus, proceed from there to > your risk comfort level.) Agreed. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 00:27:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02504 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S4RBs31355 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W7It-00089e-AS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02479; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7Iq-00016p-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7Il-00016m-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W7Ij-00086V-LE; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W7IL-00085z-5J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02450 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7II-00016E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:34 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7I8-000169-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:24 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip27-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.27]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CF13C36948 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:17 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses Message-ID: <20030628002617.C2360@m433> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from gep2@terabites.com on Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:32:22PM -0500 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:17 -0400 On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:32:22PM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote > ALL operating systems are vulnerable to viruses, as long as the > systems are user-programmable (or program-extensible). OK, your > digital watch, your microwave oven (probably), and your laser printer > probably aren't vulnerable to viruses. But that's because nobody > else can much change their code, either. > > > Other operating systems, or at least late-releases (e.g., Max OSX), > are not susceptible to viruses. > > And just what is the "magic bullet" that you think magically makes > those systems "not susceptible"? I don't believe that there IS such > a magic bullet. Because they *DON'T AUTO-EXECUTE EMAIL*. Yeah, there's been a patch out for a while, but each time somebody's Windows crashes, and they re-install, they're back to square 1. Unixes used to have backtick expansion enabled in mailcap. It was determined to be "not a good thing" and was depracated. Windows comes with "Windows Scripting Host" enabled. And even if you delete it, most 3rd-party programs' install routines will install a copy to facilitate the install script. Of course the installer leaves the scripting host installed. > And in particular, a WORD macro virus (for instance) which works on > a Windows-based OS will probably work on a Mac-based OS too... since > the level of abstraction provided by the macro facility SPECIFICALLY > shields the executing macro from vagaries based on the underlying OS. Not on AbiWord for linux, it won't execute. > The better solution is really to put restrictions in place on > incoming material (and E-mail is our focus here) such that potentially > dangerous executable stuff (and in practice, this means ActiveX-type > stuff, scripting, and potentially malicious attachments) simply > aren't allowed to be delivered unless they come from pre-arranged > (or post-permitted, maybe), _trusted_ people who we EXPECT such type > of stuff to come from. Howsabout the OS not allowing users to execute attachments from inside email. Beyond this, what about *AUTO_EXECUTION OF ATTACHMENTS* ? > I got a spam just a day or two ago shilling for a porn site and > crowing about how "no credit card required". The link said, > in essence, "to connect to this site directly using your modem, > CLICK HERE." Under the concealment of the HTML, the link pointed > to a URL of .exe type. Most lusers wouldn't realize (of course) > the implication of the (truthful) prompt... that the executable was > planning to hang up the person's Internet connection through their > local ISP, then redial on the user's modem to a 900-type international > telephone number at staggering per-minute charges, which will of > course bill to the luser's phone bill to arrive a month later. Windows *BY DEFAULT* displays an attachment named "Loveletter.txt.vbs" as "Loveletter.txt". *EVEN IF YOU TURN OFF THE OPTION TO HIDE EXTENSIONS* .lnk and .pif *WILL STILL BE HIDDEN*, unless you get into some registry hacking that is beyond the ability of the average user. We pound away at users not to execute executable attachments, and they think that clicking on a *.GIF or *.JPEG is OK. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 00:46:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02983 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S4kIl03817 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W7bO-0000zU-GI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02974; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7bL-0001Es-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7bG-0001Ep-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W7b7-0000wM-6L; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W7ae-0000w7-PJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:45:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02968 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7ac-0001Ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:45:30 -0400 Received: from bay2-f33.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.33] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W7aR-0001Ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:45:19 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:44:29 -0700 Received: from 62.253.8.12 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 04:44:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.8.12] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_it@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 04:44:29.0515 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5EC09B0:01C33D2F] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 04:44:29 +0000 Perhaps you should examine the 'GIEIS' system located here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necroplis And also refer to ASRG - The Solution to Spam - The First Response. This system would kill off the majority of email based attacks on unsuspecting users. I would appreciate your comments, Mark McCarron. >From: Walter Dnes >To: ASRG list >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Viruses >Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:17 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc8-f22.law1.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.158]) by >mc8-s5.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 27 Jun >2003 21:28:11 -0700 >Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.6.20]) by >mc8-f22.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 27 Jun >2003 21:27:17 -0700 >Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)by >optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20)id 19W7Ij-00086T-JA; Sat, 28 Jun >2003 00:27:01 -0400 >Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)by >optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20)id 19W7IL-00085z-5Jfor >asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:37 -0400 >Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])by ietf.org >(8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02450for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 >00:26:33 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1])by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)id >19W7II-00016E-00for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:26:34 -0400 >Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com)by >ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12)id 19W7I8-000169-00for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 >Jun 2003 00:26:24 -0400 >Received: from waltdnes.org (ip27-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.27])by >smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CF13C36948for ; Sat, >28 Jun 2003 00:26:17 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 >00:26:17 -0400 >X-Message-Info: KtxBqYfPyq2q+b5GbwSpcDYCuxNqEkmv >Message-ID: <20030628002617.C2360@m433> >References: >User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i >In-Reply-To: ; from gep2@terabites.com on >Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:32:22PM -0500 >Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org >Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org >X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 >Precedence: bulk >List-Unsubscribe: >, >List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >, >List-Archive: >Return-Path: asrg-admin@ietf.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 04:27:19.0948 (UTC) >FILETIME=[904094C0:01C33D2D] > >On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:32:22PM -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote > > > ALL operating systems are vulnerable to viruses, as long as the > > systems are user-programmable (or program-extensible). OK, your > > digital watch, your microwave oven (probably), and your laser printer > > probably aren't vulnerable to viruses. But that's because nobody > > else can much change their code, either. > > > > > Other operating systems, or at least late-releases (e.g., Max OSX), > > are not susceptible to viruses. > > > > And just what is the "magic bullet" that you think magically makes > > those systems "not susceptible"? I don't believe that there IS such > > a magic bullet. > > Because they *DON'T AUTO-EXECUTE EMAIL*. Yeah, there's been a patch >out for a while, but each time somebody's Windows crashes, and they >re-install, they're back to square 1. Unixes used to have backtick >expansion enabled in mailcap. It was determined to be "not a good >thing" and was depracated. Windows comes with "Windows Scripting Host" >enabled. And even if you delete it, most 3rd-party programs' install >routines will install a copy to facilitate the install script. Of >course the installer leaves the scripting host installed. > > > And in particular, a WORD macro virus (for instance) which works on > > a Windows-based OS will probably work on a Mac-based OS too... since > > the level of abstraction provided by the macro facility SPECIFICALLY > > shields the executing macro from vagaries based on the underlying OS. > > Not on AbiWord for linux, it won't execute. > > > The better solution is really to put restrictions in place on > > incoming material (and E-mail is our focus here) such that potentially > > dangerous executable stuff (and in practice, this means ActiveX-type > > stuff, scripting, and potentially malicious attachments) simply > > aren't allowed to be delivered unless they come from pre-arranged > > (or post-permitted, maybe), _trusted_ people who we EXPECT such type > > of stuff to come from. > > Howsabout the OS not allowing users to execute attachments from inside >email. Beyond this, what about *AUTO_EXECUTION OF ATTACHMENTS* ? > > > I got a spam just a day or two ago shilling for a porn site and > > crowing about how "no credit card required". The link said, > > in essence, "to connect to this site directly using your modem, > > CLICK HERE." Under the concealment of the HTML, the link pointed > > to a URL of .exe type. Most lusers wouldn't realize (of course) > > the implication of the (truthful) prompt... that the executable was > > planning to hang up the person's Internet connection through their > > local ISP, then redial on the user's modem to a 900-type international > > telephone number at staggering per-minute charges, which will of > > course bill to the luser's phone bill to arrive a month later. > > Windows *BY DEFAULT* displays an attachment named "Loveletter.txt.vbs" >as "Loveletter.txt". *EVEN IF YOU TURN OFF THE OPTION TO HIDE >EXTENSIONS* .lnk and .pif *WILL STILL BE HIDDEN*, unless you get into >some registry hacking that is beyond the ability of the average user. >We pound away at users not to execute executable attachments, and they >think that clicking on a *.GIF or *.JPEG is OK. > >-- >Walter Dnes >Email users are divided into two classes; >1) Those who have effective spam-blocking >2) Those who wish they did > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 01:17:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03329 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S5HJk09904 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W85P-0002Zf-Bz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03322; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W85M-0001KZ-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W85G-0001KW-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W856-0002SY-L0; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:17:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W84L-0002SI-HY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:16:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03318 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:15:57 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W843-0001KT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:15:55 -0400 Received: from h001.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.65] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W83s-0001KQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:15:44 -0400 Received: (cpmta 20704 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2003 22:15:19 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.65) with SMTP; 27 Jun 2003 22:15:19 -0700 X-Sent: 28 Jun 2003 05:15:19 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:13:36 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:42:10 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Consent Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:42:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> There was some more fundamental (but probably premature) >discussion of "consent" early in the life this group. > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's HTML blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. I think that my approach, with sender/recipient-pair-based permissions list and a (perhaps multi-stage) transition strategy as I suggested would clearly make a big reduction in spam volume (bytes at least), and the system is simple enough that users could understand and deal with it. I think it's a big bonus that it (the SAME mechanism) also would take a big chunk out of viruses/worms/trojans (and I spent the last half of today disinfecting three systems at one of my consulting clients... all three systems had multiple infections of Bugbear and Klez... several variants of each). I also like the fact that my approach doesn't require a global consensus or even a "standard" for how to implement it. It can be implemented on an ISP-by-ISP basis incrementally. > If discussion of consent is premature at the moment, Why would it be "premature" if in fact it is the MOST practical, the MOST effective, the MOST implementable and the MOST comprehensible of the proposals we've been discussing? > what should we be looking at right now? I think we should be looking at (1) finding ISPs interested in pursuing implementation of early prototypes of these systems, and (2) discussing the idea with Microsoft and AOL and Netscape, as those three companies have the most to do with the defaulting to sending bulky HTML-burdened E-mail. > In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the moment? As it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions about everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all. *I* certainly have a sense of direction. But again, we can *expect* that getting concurrence is going to be like herding cats... that's precisely why I feel we *must* have a scheme which can be implemented WITHOUT requiring standards or global consensus. I just don't think we should expect to have that. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 02:45:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16879 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S6jGP06212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9SV-0001c7-N3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16857; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9SR-0001jh-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9SM-0001je-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9SH-0001aA-Lu; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9Rr-0001Zi-96 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:44:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16851 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9RY-0001jR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:44:16 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9RN-0001jA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:44:05 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip27-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.27]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 317C136A00 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:43:31 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030628024331.D2360@m433> References: <20030623160003.25799.72124.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <1056633249.3efaf1a1cd2dc@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1056633249.3efaf1a1cd2dc@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk>; from A.D.Akehurst-99@student.lboro.ac.uk on Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 01:14:09PM +0000 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:43:31 -0400 On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 01:14:09PM +0000, Andrew Akehurst wrote > Would you envisage this involving the creation of a separate > network in parallel with the internet (along the lines of ANX, > ENX etc. mentioned recently)? If so, how (if at all) would such a > system connect with the existing internet infrastructure? It would have to either be physically on the internet, or at least gatewayed to the internet, so that ordinary end-users could access inboxes on the system (POP over ssh, webmail over ssl, whatever). > Given the well-known problems of identifying the true sender when > SMTP is used, it seems likely that a different protocol with better > authentication would required to avoid the possibility of a rogue > organisation sending messages at someone else's expense or claiming > to originate from some address other than the true sender. If so, > it would be appropriate to consider what properties such a protocol > ought to have. The one item that's very difficult to forge right now is the IP address of the sending MTA. Most businesses have static IP addresses. That, plus a paid-up account with sending privileges would be necessary to log on as a sender. > I'm curious to know how the new business e-mail system would interact > with Joe Public. You say that the public could have free read-only > accounts, which I assume would have a separate address from the > personal email system. > > Suppose I sign up for such an account and am given an e-mail address > "andrew@freebie.net" The general public would only need a read-only account. Something more like AndrewAkehurst@readonly.bad.example.com. > Does this mean that when I give a company an address to contact me, > I would give them my "andrew@freebie.net" address? I guess that all > business contacts between customer and company would ultimately be > through this new business e-mail system. As I mentioned earlier in another posting, this system will be complementary to, not a replacement for personal email. Think of Fedex/UPS/Purolater; too expensive for everyday use, but when a file *HAS* to get there... > At the moment, all businesses and individuals use the same shared > e-mail system. When this new business e-mail system comes into being, > what will persuade businesses to switch to using it? Is it the pure > economic argument about differentiation of services by providing > tracked, guaranteed delivery within that network? That's what I expect. > If such a network had extra features too, such as use of encryption > and digital signatures to provide confidentiality and non-repudiation > then I can imagine it would appear very attractive to corporate > users. Perhaps I've answered this question myself, but I'd like to > hear your answer. :-) "The customer is always right"... especially if they're a mult-billion dollar multi-national. > Assuming that some companies do take up the new business e-mail > system, there seems to be nothing that would force all other companies > to do the same. What effect do you believe (in the short to medium > term) this scheme would have on sending of spam over the existing > e-mail system? > > If Mr Spammer wishes to continue sending me junk, surely he will just > stay on the existing personal internet using SMTP with all of the > problems that we see today. How would life for the existing e-mail > recipient improve by the creation of a separate business network? Now that spam has been recognized, filtering/blocking has been taken seriously, and it is starting to work. And the pigs are squealing. Just take a look at http://www.jamspam.org/home or as it's "affectionately" known in some circles, the "Jam-Spam-Down-Your-Throat" consortium. > In addition to that measure, if the ISP that furnishes IP addresses > to the alleged offenders doesn't take action, then the blacklist > providers engage in extortion by adding that ISP and its entire > range of IP addresses to their blacklists. Then, the blacklist > providers shift the responsibility of conforming to that blacklist > to the next upstream ISP and so on. The thinking is that if an ISP > is not part of the solution, then it must be part of the problem. > > As a result of this mafia-like protection racket, thousands of > ISPs are having "cooperation" extorted from them by the blacklist > providers. In the process of cooperating with blacklist providers > that are not answerable to any authority, ISPs are blocking SMTP > traffic from systems that have not been professionally verified to > be sources of spam. The "Email Service Providers Consortium" (ESPC) ( Membership list at http://www.networkadvertising.org/espc/members.asp ) is whining about 15% of "legitimate commercial email" not reaching its destination. Let's just say that my definition of "legitimate" is quite different from theirs. Looking at the membership list, you'll see many well-known spammers-in-pinstripe-suits, several of whom have sued their way off of MAPS list. And Bill Gates is joining in the chorus for banning blocking of spam. If you don't believe me, just look at his own words at... http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2003/06-24antispam-print.asp > Self-regulation needs to be supported by strong federal legislation > that empowers consumers without threatening the vitality of legitimate > e-commerce. Our proposal is to create a regulatory "safe harbor" > status for senders who comply with guidelines. The guidelines would > be subject to approval by the Federal Trade Commission. Compliance > would be confirmed by a self-regulatory body. Senders who do not > comply would have to insert an "ADV:" label, for advertisement, > in the subject line of all unsolicited commercial e-mail. > > Computer users could then customize their spam filters to either > accept "ADV:"-labeled mail or automatically delete it. Enabling > consumers to regain control of their inboxes in this way would > dramatically reduce the volume of spam by creating strong incentives > for businesses to make sure their communications are consistent with > best-practices guidelines developed by industry itself That's right. He wants everybody to filter on "ADV:". But certain companies who click their heels, dance thrice widdershins around a faerie-circle, and declare themselves to be really-really-really opt-in wouldn't be required to use "ADV:" in their spam^H^H^H^H important consumer information. And since ISPs would only be allowed to filter on "ADV:" those certain companies would be guaranteed access to your inbox. Unless filtering/blocking is outlawed, spam will be a problem of the past. > Given what you say here, there must be some kind of linkage > between the two e- mail systems. How do you propose to identify > (and distinguish between) personal ISP users and business ISP users? > > Would business e-mail customers be recognised by IP address That would be the easiest, most effective way of doing things. IP address is extremely difficult to forge in TCP packets, especially if the receciving MTA runs an OS that makes a half-decent attempt at randomizing TCP sequence numbers. > Furthermore, how do you envisage messages would travel between the > two e-mail systems? Your comments above imply the use of SMTP to > ultimately deliver messages to end-users on the residential network, > but I assume you're being careful to avoid design decisions about > what would be used to send e-mail in the opposite direction. I would have the public have read-only email accounts, accessable via POP over ssh, or webmail over ssl, or some other method of access. There would be no need to use SMTP for the final step. Since personal email is, by definition, not business-level-robust, it can't be used for guaranteed delivery. > Would a business be allowed to send messages from the business > e-mail network to the residential one? It's a very important feature, > since how else could a business answer customer queries? No. The business could communicate via ordinary (personal) email if it chose to do so. The business network would be used to send email to the consumer's free, read-only email account on a business ISP. From his home ISP, the customer could secure-link to the business ISP. The whole rationale behind business ISPs is that personal email is unreliable. Sending email from the business network to the regular network defeats the whole purpose of business ISPs. Let me repeat. The business ISP is *NOT* intended for casual queries, etc. It is intended for guaranteed delivery of emails when it's considered important enough that the sender is willing to pay. > Would they simply send responses to the customer's free read-only > address on the business network? If so, there still needs to be some > way in which that customer could conveniently read the messages sent > to that address; those messages must somehow be delivered to their > final recipient. The average Windows user would have another icon on their desktop. Once connected to their regular ISP, they would click on that extra icon, and access POPmail at the business ISP. Some form of encryption or tunneling or secure access would be required, but it could be automated. Other OSs would have similar connections. I'm simply using the most common OS as an example. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 02:53:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17027 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S6r9Y08302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:53:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9a9-00029p-79 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:53:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17019; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9a5-0001mh-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:53:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9Zz-0001me-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:52:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9a1-00023R-IH; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9Z8-0001yI-LQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:52:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16996 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9Z4-0001lz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:52:02 -0400 Received: from bay8-f3.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.3] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9Yu-0001lj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:51:52 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:50:45 -0700 Received: from 62.253.8.34 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:50:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.8.34] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Moo Mansun" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Urgent Read This Please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 06:50:45.0694 (UTC) FILETIME=[99AD35E0:01C33D41] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:50:45 +0000 As most of you know I have been posting here regarding the 'GIEIS' email protection system. Well, wait until you hear what has happened. Suddenly, ALL my email accounts are CANCELED, both MSN Hotmail and ICQMail and the site I had up now produces a 404 not found message. The files are STILL there, only they cannot be viewed across the internet. Anybody got ANY ideas as to what is going on??? My ISP is NTL in the UK and they are BLOCKING access to the 'GIEIS' system. Looks like someone out there is CENSORING the 'GIEIS' system. I'm going to phone my ISP now and find out what excuses they have. Please check this for yourselves by following this link: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 03:00:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17155 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S70Ec09729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9gy-0002UY-Rq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17148; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9gu-0001pL-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9gp-0001pI-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9go-0002QN-4v; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9gd-0002Pe-He for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17126 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9gZ-0001p7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:47 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9gP-0001p4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:37 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip27-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.27]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C7D8D36A39 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:31 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam Message-ID: <20030628025931.E2360@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626110949.00b4e8e0@solidmatrix.com> <200306261620.h5QGK2t5011765@calcite.rhyolite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200306261620.h5QGK2t5011765@calcite.rhyolite.com>; from vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com on Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:20:02AM -0600 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:59:31 -0400 On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:20:02AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote > Of the 34,740 spam in my 39 day rolling log that were not relay > probes, 15,025 or 43% had sender domains from among the 784 domains > listed in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html Do you have separate spam stats for where email claiming to be from service X actually is from service X, versus email claiming to be from service X actually is from service Y? At the end of my blocklist rules I have... > PIACCEPTTAIL aol.com > SIREJECTTAIL aol.com I only accept From: @aol.com addresses if the email actually originates from a aol.com server. > PIACCEPTTAIL hotmail.com > SIREJECTTAIL hotmail.com I only accept From: @hotmail.com addresses if the email actually originates from a hotmail.com server. > PIACCEPTTAIL msn.com > SIREJECTTAIL msn.com I only accept From: @msn.com addresses if the email actually originates from a msn.com server. > PIACCEPTTAIL yahoo.com > SIREJECTTAIL yahoo.com I only accept From: @yahoo.com addresses if the email actually originates from a yahoo.com server. PIACCEPTTAIL => accept email if the tail end of the rDNS matches pattern SIREJECTTAIL => reject email if the tail end of the sender envelope matches pattern This is less draconian than blindly rejecting based on envelope sender. It still catches spammers, but has a lot fewer false positives. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 03:02:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17212 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S729410679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:02:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9ir-0002mA-1t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:02:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17202; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9in-0001q6-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:02:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9ih-0001q3-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:01:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9ik-0002fo-1D; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:02:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9iQ-0002fa-8c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:01:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17191 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9iM-0001px-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:01:38 -0400 Received: from bay8-f64.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.64] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9iB-0001pW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:01:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:00:35 -0700 Received: from 62.253.8.34 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:00:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.8.34] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Moo Mansun" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' Site restored Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 07:00:35.0240 (UTC) FILETIME=[F912CA80:01C33D42] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:00:34 +0000 I contacted my ISP and they claimed that the site was blocked because of heavy traffic. Its a free account that comes with a dial-up service. Apparantly, it has been getting nearly 1000 hits per hour for the last 10 hours. I explained that it was because the contents were to do with a new anti-spam system and they agreed to allow as much band-width as needed. Thankyou NTL, all I have to do now is find out why my email accounts were all canceled. The 'GIEIS' system is now back in public view at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Please post your opinions and suggestions about the system to this mailing group. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 03:14:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17470 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S7EAs14234 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9uU-0003hV-A5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17454; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9uS-0001uf-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9uM-0001uc-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9uL-0003eI-CJ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9uH-0003dm-Ji for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:13:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17439 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:13:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9u0-0001uO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:13:40 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9to-0001uC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:13:29 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5S7D0Pk002149 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:13:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306280713.h5S7D0Pk002149@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Microsoft and spam References: <20030628025931.E2360@m433> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 01:13:00 -0600 (MDT) > From: Walter Dnes > > Of the 34,740 spam in my 39 day rolling log that were not relay > > probes, 15,025 or 43% had sender domains from among the 784 domains > > listed in http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/freemail.html > > Do you have separate spam stats for where email claiming to be from > service X actually is from service X, versus email claiming to be from > service X actually is from service Y? I don't have "stats". Instead I wrote a script that ground through what were at the time 34,740 milter/DCC log files. It took from each log file the sender domain as it was handed to the sendmail.cf Local_check_mail rule and then canonicalized. Then it `grep`d through the flat file that generates part of my access_DB. > ... > This is less draconian than blindly rejecting based on envelope > sender. It still catches spammers, but has a lot fewer false positives. For my particular situation, the false positive rate of my blacklist of free provides is less than 0.05% of all mail sent my direction and less than 0.5% of legitimate mail. Your results may vary. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 03:19:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17572 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S7JAU15097 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9zJ-0003vQ-5c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17562; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9zG-0001vo-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9zB-0001vl-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9zB-0003sK-5c; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9yS-0003rn-HL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:18:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17516 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9vv-0001vA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:15:39 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9vk-0001v7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:15:29 -0400 Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Major E-mail Delivery for FTC DNCR Launch Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:15:32 -0700 At 06:40 PM 6/26/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: [...] > >I think switching to sender pays is impossible, even if it were >desirable or practical with some other history. Except in the >perverted cases where big advertisers pay big sellers of "eyes," >there are insurmountable practical problems in authorization, >authentication, and general accounting. Sender pays for email >makes just as much sense as sender-pays-per-IP-packet, which about >15 years after it was first pushed, makes even less sense. >(Yes, I've heard of peering fees and approximations to "settlements".) > I've seen many /technically/ workable sender pays variants. Here's a simple one that bypasses the need for special accounting; Place a minimum size on a message of 10 Megabytes. Any message that is too small, is simply rejected with a "555 message to small, pad to 10,000,000 bytes". Note that this is backward compatible with most email clients, since it's relatively easy to attach a 10 meg file, and does not require 100% adoption before it works. (If the reader is a fan of some other "sender pays" variant and thinks this is silly, consider for a moment why this is silly, but your pet "sender pays" is not.) Of course, "technically possible" is not the same as "desirable". Unless both the sender and the receiver perceive strong benefits to change, the system will not change. I /like/ cheap email, and I'm very much opposed to anything which might change that. I do not think I'm alone. I would hazard a guess that if someone tried to increase the price, say by legislating a tax, that I would use SMTP on a different port "just amongst my friends" and it wouldn't take long before those on the "friends" network encompassed the entire internet. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 03:20:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17606 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S7K9U15878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WA0G-00047y-IW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17599; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WA0E-0001wc-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WA08-0001wZ-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WA09-00041H-6c; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19W9zx-00040i-OZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17571 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9zg-0001wB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:32 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19W9zV-0001va-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:19:21 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A19A154000F4; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:54 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:23:56 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consent Proposal thread-index: AcM83O3MLwOQaFMvRcGQumwVJIrx8wAZc6Bw From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:19:47 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov, I'll summarize my response based on your points and questions below: What I'm talking about is that our consent framework define a very, very general set of standards such that: 1. vendors can develop an anti-spam software module based on whatever they think is a good idea. 2. this module can be installed/plugged in/inserted/etc such that it will apply to either the MUA or MTA, depending on how it was intended. 3. each module can interoperate with both the framework (of course) and each other. This would allow modules to be installed in "series" or possibly "parallel" so that several different modules can be stacked to provide a powerful anti-spam technology. 4. The modules can be controlled by a hierarchical organization starting w/ the ISP at the highest level, then cascading to the domain, then the end user. If we think this is a good idea, then we can take all the different specific anti-spam approaches that have been proposed so far and go back and forth between thinking up the framework and thinking up the modifications that would be required to the existing proposed technologies. The framework would primarily define the "bus" or the basic way that data would be passed from one module to another both for the MTA and MUA perspective. The analogy here is we create a "PCI bus" designed to allow end-users to control email that gets to their inbox and we let customer need and market forces to create the specific "PCI Cards" that get plugged into a given email infrastructure. Does this make sense or am I completely way off in understanding what we're talking about when we say framework? Peter Kay President TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent =20 >=20 > >I think you've got the beginning of a consent-based=20 > framework. I like=20 > >it. What I'm getting out of this is: > > > >A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on MUA or MTA=20 > >(ISP). >=20 > Plug-in is not the correct word here, we are seeking to=20 > create a general=20 > framework with details left for specific implementations. >=20 > >B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition,=20 > related to=20 > >the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR to all the=20 > >other methods mentioned below. >=20 > Each implementation/ >=20 > >C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting=20 > w/ the ISP=20 > >(for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate=20 > >applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on=20 > varying levels=20 > >of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP=20 > >whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to=20 > blacklist it. >=20 > Are you suggesting that the various implementations should be able to=20 > interoperate? This can be done by defining interoperability=20 > protocols like=20 > the CRI protocol for C/R systems. >=20 >=20 >=20 > >To me, this reinforces what I've seen over the past few=20 > months on this > >group: > > > >1. no one can agree what spam is. So at the end of the day, the user=20 > >has to have the power to decide. This is in line w/ the charter. >=20 > Agreed >=20 > >2. no one technological approach "religion" (i.e. filtering,=20 > C/R, etc)=20 > >is adequate to deal with the general problem of "unwanted email". >=20 > Agreed. >=20 > >3. spammers will change their methods as time goes on, so the=20 > >architecture must allow for that. >=20 > Agreed >=20 >=20 > >In addition, a consent-based framework allows for multiple=20 > vendors to=20 > >participate. If we can create some sort of "email bus" I=20 > think it has a=20 > >lot of potential. >=20 > An email bus? Can you explain this? >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > > > > > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for=20 > consent-based system=20 > > > as per > > > charter: > > > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter incoming=20 > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs,=20 > and are not > > > mandated. > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from > > > banning all email > > > not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a > > > whitelist of trusted > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of > > > unknown senders. > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to > > > the bulk folder, > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses > > > of trusted senders, > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features > > > such as digital > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such > > > email from > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the > > > inbox unless > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon > > > receiving a > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as > > > email coming > > > from known open relays is blocked. > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or > > > encrypted to > > > protect privacy. > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 03:56:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18281 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5S7uFl27443 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WAZD-00078Y-OJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18277; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WAZB-00025j-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WAZ5-00025g-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WAZ0-000764-8s; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WAYf-00075K-Nq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:55:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18274 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WAYO-00025d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:55:24 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WAYD-00025Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:55:13 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip27-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.27]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ADCE73699E for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:54:17 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Message-ID: <20030628035417.F2360@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:23:25PM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:54:17 -0400 On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:23:25PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > I would like to provide a generic proposal for consent-based system as per > charter: I have an account at clss.net. They run a modified Qmail that parses a config file in the user's home directory. The filter rules are applied during the SMTP transaction, just after the RCPT: stage. > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter incoming email. > Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, and are not mandated. Yup. There's a "user friendly" frontend menu. I prefer to manually edit the filter file with vim for maximum flexibility. > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist > of trusted senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist > of unknown senders. Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted > senders go to the bulk folder, and blacklisted senders are either > in the spam folder or erased. Because the blocking takes place during the SMTP transaction, the sending MTA gets the big 550. Rejected emails are *NOT* "bounced" to innocent 3rd parties whose email addresses have been forged by spammers. - Whitelisted email goes through with a free pass, regardless of any other rules it may trip. - Blacklisted email gets a 550 message, in most cases containing a pointer to one of my webpages that has a current unfiltered temporary alternate email address. This is a safety net for legitimate senders who get caught as collateral damage by the DNSbls or other blocking rules I use. Spammers don't seem to read reject messages, so that filter bypass hasn't been abused yet. - Greylist... I define to mean that portion of messages that are not in my whitelist, but do not trip any of my blocking rules. Those messages are accepted just like regular email. > 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses of trusted > senders, but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features > such as digital signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. Since clss.net's system makes the decision before the DATA: stage, this additional stuff is not available. IP address and rDNS can be used, however. > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such email from > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the inbox unless > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon receiving a > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. I do it all manually. > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as email coming > from known open relays is blocked. That's what DNSbls are for. They update as new open relays and proxies are discovered. They also automatically de-list with closure. I do have to manually add/delete countries that I block using the zz.countries.nerd.dk superzone. I started off with South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Nigeria. As Nigerian scammers realized Nigeria was blocked to hell and back, they moved to the Netherlands, which I also had to block. France and Isreal have recently popped up on my spam radar. > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or encrypted > to protect privacy. That may generate a misleading warm fuzzy feeling, but it's useless. A traffic log of your emails will show what you accept/reject. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 08:19:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21610 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SCJIZ13616 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WEfm-0003XX-DY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21602; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WEfl-000301-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WEff-0002zy-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WEfV-0003Qt-8f; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WEev-0003Qc-4t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:18:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA21570 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WEeu-0002zZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:18:24 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WEej-0002yj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:18:13 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19WEeL-0001by-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:17:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <16124.52439.895213.913633@world.std.com> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Barry Shein" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:17:49 +0100 > > How is any of this consent/filtering related to the usual IETF purpose > such as protocol documents (RFCs, etc), network engineering, and not > just some ad hoc User Interface Engineering? > > > It seems to me the consent proposals (getting any attention) thus far > require no change to any existing protocols or standards, and don't > seem to imply any new protocols or standards. > > Where in the stack would any of this fit and why does this group need > to be involved? It's seems quite likely that distributed consent mechanisms (by which I mean that policy origination and enforcement need not occur at the same place) will require publication of new standards and protocols. If, that is, we're to expect inter-"vendor" applications. Some mechanisms which support consent (eg C/R) have a strong requirement for interoperability standards etc. Equally, there's scope for producing useful documents covering any class of anti-spam system which need not actually specify protocols: BCP, "Some considerations regarding..." etc. You'll be aware that many RFCs do not specify any protocol. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 10:43:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24446 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SEhGk04038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WGv6-000133-Nz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24435; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WGv4-0003TA-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WGuy-0003T7-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WGur-00010S-37; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WGuK-000101-BY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:42:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24420 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WGuI-0003SU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:42:26 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WGu7-0003SI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:42:15 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WGtA-0001ls-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:41:16 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:23 EDT." <000d01c33cf9$2f661b90$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:41:16 -0400 bob@wyman.us wrote: > I think you're being too extreme in your analysis here. Even if > the various systems you list are used, there is no reason (except for > challenge/response) that we need to assume that the failure of a system > to support one or another method would cause mail to be discarded. I meant that such extreme systems would be too expensive to use (time, effort, money, maintenance...) A guiding principle is that the number of transactions goes down exponentially with the cost of each transaction. This is why email is so useful, and spam is so prevelent: email is near zero-cost. The anti-spam solutions should be focussing on increasing the costs of the behaviour which spammers use, and non-spammers don't. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 10:50:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24540 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SEo9105724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WH1l-0001UF-F3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24533; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WH1i-0003Us-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WH1d-0003Up-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WH1e-0001P1-7K; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:50:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WH1M-0001Og-Q3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:49:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24530 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WH1K-0003Uk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:49:42 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WH19-0003Uh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:49:31 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WH0S-0001m3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:48:48 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] What ISPs do about infected computers? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:42:35 EDT." <5.2.0.9.2.20030627184230.00ba6828@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:48:48 -0400 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I recently ran across the following email which came from an ISP responding > to a complaint about an infected system on their network issued by DShield > (http://www.dshield.org/): > > ---------snip------------ ... > We don't care, the major issue is that we don't want to receive this kind > of mail, because we're a large ISP and we have no control about our > multiple clients and their Windows systems. > > Your mail was annoying, so we simply filtered it out. We know that many of > them are infected even if we don't receive your mail. > ---------snip------------ I understand 100%. Even 2 years ago, I had big fights with users of anti-spam systems, who "helpfully" notified me that my domain was being used in the From: & body of spam. They were *quite* angry when I told them I didn't want to see such messages, ("but you may have a bad user at your domain!"), and that I was the *only* person with an account at that domain. I finally fixed the problem by getting the anti-spam vendors to quench *all* reports for my domain. The solution here is not to send the ISP a notification. The solution is to send them a sales rep, who can sell them a 1Gbps switch with full anti-virus scanning & fuiltering capabilities. Even if it costs $100K, they will recuperate that quickly, in fewer support calls, a more stable network, etc. And I think that the root cause of this behaviour (for good or bad) is that the IETF does not do compliance testing or enforcement. If they did, it would be possible to order them removed from the net, as a non-net-friendly system. But politics can be massively abused, which is why the IETF has avoided it until now. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 11:00:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24749 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SF0CU07177 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHBU-0001rg-JK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24741; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHBR-0003ZV-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHBM-0003ZS-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHBK-0001pM-0J; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHAo-0001oa-6m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:59:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24708 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHAl-0003Z0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:59:27 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHAb-0003Yv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:59:17 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WH9t-0001mE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:58:33 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:16:30 EDT." <16124.53326.946533.799165@world.std.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:58:33 -0400 Barry Shein wrote: > Um, when have you ever seen a DDOS attack with thousands of computers > are spewing packets? Do you have an example? > Also, what service is being denied? SMTP. > Except it's not a DDOS attack, except as a broad-sweeping (and useful) > metaphor. It's a DDoS attack. For me, it got to the point where I couldn't afford to run sendmail, as the machine would pretty much lock up. Once I installed a non-bloated mailer, the machine became useable again. Then the spam load went up by a factor of 10. So I installed a whitelist filter, sending ICMP "port unreachable"s for people not on the whitelist. My ISP called me, and said I was using too much bandwidth, so I stopped sending ICMP's. Then the incoming TCP SYN's from spammers became too much, and I gave up completely. I pointed my MX at Nortel's spam trap at one point. Half of my spam went there, and I doubled their spam load for the day. Unlike them, I do NOT have 100's of 1000's of dollars to throw at the problem (or even $1000's), so my ONLY option was to give up on the domain. If the only thing you can do in response to spam is give up and walk away, then it's a DDoS attack. This is the future of spam for *everyone*. I was saying this 3-4 years ago, and almost no on believed me. If we don't do SOMETHING to solve the spam problem, then 3-4 years from now, my current problems will seem minor, and NO ONE will be using email. That's the biggest reason why I've been supporting non-perfect solutions: the options currently available are no email, or a non-perfect anti-spam system. Wake up, people... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 11:16:16 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25027 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SFFDF10236 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHQ1-0002f1-5z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25005; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHQ0-0003dp-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHPu-0003df-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHPp-0002bp-Qn; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHPK-0002bV-7G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24990 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHPJ-0003dV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:29 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHP8-0003dN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:18 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19WHOU-0005xe-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:13:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030628035417.F2360@m433> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal To: "Walter Dnes" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:13:38 +0100 > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or encrypted > > to protect privacy. > > That may generate a misleading warm fuzzy feeling, but it's useless. > A traffic log of your emails will show what you accept/reject. > Walter, I've said this before, I'll say it again (no doubt) - There is an important difference here: Traffic logs MAY preserve this information, and of course many organisations (and many jurisdictions) have retention policy. These anti-spam systems MUST preserve it (for some "long" time) and so need to build-in provisions for security / privacy. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 11:16:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25043 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SFG8010903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHQu-0002pm-HL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25022; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHQt-0003eC-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHQn-0003e8-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHQn-0002kW-QO; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHQ7-0002ic-Hx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:15:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24988 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHP4-0003dQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:14 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHOt-0003dJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:14:03 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id 9068529C02A; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5891529C026 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A060C8FF0140; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:12:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030628110543.00ba2ca8@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Madscientist Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: Db060140.SMD Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:12:30 -0400 At 10:41 AM 6/28/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: > A guiding principle is that the number of transactions goes down >exponentially with the cost of each transaction. This is why email is >so useful, and spam is so prevelent: email is near zero-cost. > > The anti-spam solutions should be focussing on increasing the costs >of the behaviour which spammers use, and non-spammers don't. I must respectfully but strongly disagree. An increase in cost, in general, does not focus on the root problem of abuse, but does carry with it a host of undesirable artifacts (well covered elsewhere). It is possible with technical means to drastically reduce the potential for abuse without increasing costs (fiduciary or otherwise). The goal should be to make spam (and other forms of abuse) impractical rather than simply unprofitable. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 11:20:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25123 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SFKBg11890 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHUo-00035h-UB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25104; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHUn-0003fX-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHUi-0003fU-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHUf-00033U-J3; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHUG-00032c-JZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:19:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25093 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHUF-0003fE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:19:35 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHU5-0003fB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:19:25 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19WHTy-0006ag-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating To: "Alan DeKok" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:18 +0100 > away, then it's a DDoS attack. This is the future of spam for > *everyone*. I was saying this 3-4 years ago, and almost no on > believed me. If we don't do SOMETHING to solve the spam problem, then > 3-4 years from now, my current problems will seem minor, and NO ONE > will be using email. > If no-one is using (receiving) email, why will the spammers send it? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 11:41:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25482 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SFfCS15788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHpA-00046Z-Db for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25468; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHp9-0003l2-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHp3-0003kz-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHoz-00043q-6t; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHov-00043d-Bg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:40:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25455 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHou-0003kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:40:56 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHoj-0003kW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:40:45 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id BB07C29C02A; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A87E29C026; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A694F4D40112; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:39:00 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030628113658.00b3b820@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: "Alan DeKok" From: Madscientist Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Cc: "ASRG" In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: Db694112.SMD Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:38:59 -0400 At 04:19 PM 6/28/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote: > > away, then it's a DDoS attack. This is the future of spam for > > *everyone*. I was saying this 3-4 years ago, and almost no on > > believed me. If we don't do SOMETHING to solve the spam problem, then > > 3-4 years from now, my current problems will seem minor, and NO ONE > > will be using email. > > > >If no-one is using (receiving) email, why will the spammers >send it? Perhaps because someone will still be using it (observe usenet) and it will be worth throwing away everyone's resources for the opportunity (no matter how slight) to reach a potential consumer. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 11:50:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25718 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SFoVh17954 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:50:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHyB-0004fV-2e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:50:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25711; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHy9-0003ot-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:50:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHy4-0003oq-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:50:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHwj-0004Vh-Fo; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WHwT-0004VM-Bv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:48:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25699 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHwS-0003oU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:48:44 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WHwH-0003oR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:48:33 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2492556; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:48:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: "Mark McCarron" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The First Response Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="macintosh" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:18:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 3:47 AM +0000 6/28/03, Mark McCarron wrote: >The graphic is for email clients such as Outlook=20 >express and Eudora, etc. A new graphic is=20 >downloaded for each email. The system has no=20 >intention of stopping legitimate email even=20 >automated systems. They just register with an=20 >'EAS' provider and all mail is sent through it.=20 >Legitimate businesses will have to provide legal=20 >company registration details (such as reg.=20 >company number, etc). They receive a special=20 >code, upon agreeing to a legally binding This list has had this type of discussion before. Those are approximately the requirements=20 necessary for an SSL certificate. SSL=20 certificates currently last one year at about=20 $100/cert. The margins are such that virtually=20 no background checks are done. And of course=20 there is no revocation, arbitration or=20 verification done for how you use it afterwards.=20 I would guess that, at a minimum, the level of=20 support you are requesting would result in a fee=20 on the order of $1000/year in order to support=20 the necessary infrastructure and support needs.=20 It might be somewhat lower because the volume of=20 sales would be many orders of magnitude higher=20 than SSL certs, but I can't see it being any=20 cheaper. Additionally you need another class of=20 certification there, and I don't know how you're=20 going to do it. Mail servers are run by many=20 people, not just "registered" companies.=20 Validating a random individual is even harder=20 than validating companies. (Never mind what=20 happens when you have someone like a friend of=20 mine, a long-time security expert, who has never=20 owned a credit card in his life.) >Excellent points. Let's deal with the first=20 >one, there is millions of mail servers in the=20 >world, however, all these mail servers have one=20 >thing in common, they are linked to the internet=20 >backbone via some form of ISP. This is why I am=20 >referring to ISPs. Therefore, we take this=20 >common point and Yes and no. There are millions of mail servers.=20 Those mail servers are connected through an=20 "ISP". However in the case of most company=20 connections that ISP does *not* currently provide=20 email service (or if they do, not at the QoS=20 required by the company). So you are asking all=20 of those ISPs to start providing a service that=20 they don't currently provide at all, never mind=20 how you are going to integrate that into the=20 company email servers. >independant body. If set up in partnership with=20 >the largest email and ISP providers, then the=20 >rest of the industry would be assured of its=20 >reputation, Let's see. That would be AOL and Microsoft. What am I assured of? :-^ > furthermore, the system must operate within=20 >legal boundries. Mailing lists must be=20 >associated with a bonafide website, also they=20 >must contact 'GIEIS' What is a "bonafide" website, and how do you tell? > directly for setup. A credit card will be=20 >required and a $1 (=A31) charge will be made to=20 >it. Also, a mailing adress and telephone=20 >contact information would be required. They=20 >will receive a written copy of the 'Terms of=20 >Service' which they must sign and send back to=20 >'GIEIS'. Upon reception 'GIEIS' will implement=20 >the account with their ISP. The emails then=20 >sent will be analysed by heuristics. Each=20 >message will also be parsed for HTML code, such=20 >as IMAGE tags and jpg, bmp images. As the=20 >majority of mailing systems use either ASCII or=20 >UNICODE text only, spam can be detected, blocked=20 >and the offender's credit card billed with a=20 >fine. I have not placed estimates on the cost=20 >of implementation. The industry is loosing $12=20 >Billion a year, even if the partnership spent $1=20 >Billion per year (an outragous amount) they=20 >would still be saving $11 Billion. The=20 >'beancounter' (accountants) would love that. There are several problems here. =46irst of all, when you see all those numbers=20 about "losing" $12billion, they don't mean that=20 literally. They are talking about productivity=20 costs and opportunity costs and such. The "fact"=20 that spam costs $12B does not mean that companies=20 have $12B to spend if it went away. Furthermore,=20 the costs of spam are spread over millions of=20 people, whereas the costs of your service are=20 focused on a much smaller group of companies. Also, you need to rethink the scale of the email=20 system. You are envisioning centralized systems=20 using complicated software to analyze the content=20 of email messages. First of all--there's no way=20 in hell anyone is going to allow a third party to=20 analyze the content of their email. Secondly,=20 the existing mail system carries billions of=20 messages a day. The infrastructure to analyze=20 that kind of flow simply does not exist, nor is=20 likely to. >True. However, there will most likely be a=20 >period of introduction, for example 6 months.=20 >Then there will be a D-Day from which point, the=20 >system becomes exclusive. This will force the=20 >rest of the industry to adopt or face not being=20 >able to communicate with other networks. The=20 >result of non-compliance would be the loss of=20 >their customer base. Millions of end users would have to update their=20 software (if it's possible--often, especially in=20 the third world, they may be running machines and=20 operating systems which are no longer supported).=20 Millions of MTAs changed. ISPs implementing new=20 software that has never been tested. Entirely=20 new business relationships with all of the ISP=20 clients. New requirements on how email is=20 routed, with all company email going through=20 centralized servers that didn't exist before.=20 The creation of an extra-govermental organization=20 with the ability to put any company out of=20 business at a whim. This isn't an anti-spam proposal. It's something out of George Orwell :-). >blind and severely visually impaired. We have=20 >not forgot about this highly important client=20 >base. Such as a simple puzzle in brail,=20 >something that would be difficult to automate=20 >for but simple enough for a human to do. Umm. Blind computer users do not use braille to=20 read the screen. They use screen readers that=20 read the text to them. But anyway, I'm sure you=20 could deal with it. However on the whole, I would say that the=20 proposal is socially, politically, commercially=20 and technically impossible to implement. It=20 makes incorrect assumptions about how people use=20 email, how they update software, how companies do=20 business, how ISPs do business, how email travels=20 from point a to point b and who sends it. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 13:24:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27919 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SHOF803568 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJQt-0000vT-NR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27913; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJQr-0004SU-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJQl-0004SR-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:24:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJPh-0000r7-34; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJPT-0000qq-Cz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:22:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27900 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJPC-0004SE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:22:30 -0400 Received: from 226.48.93.66.in-addr.rsbx.net ([66.93.48.226] helo=mail.rsbx.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJOy-0004SB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:22:17 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02248 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:21:53 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFDCEB1.30D79C71@rsbx.net> From: Raymond S Brand X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17.crypt i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org References: <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B6B187448567954020BCEA0B" Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:21:53 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B6B187448567954020BCEA0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and a diff of the important changes between the two documents. Raymond S Brand --------------B6B187448567954020BCEA0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="draft-brand-drip-00.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-brand-drip-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network Working Group R. S. Brand Internet-Draft L. Sherzer Expires: December 27, 2003 June 28, 2003 Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) draft-brand-drip-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay mail as a domain name. The protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections from IP addresses not authorized to use a domain name. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 1] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Designating Relays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Designation Record Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Default Designation Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 IPv4 Designation Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 IPv6 Designation Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5 Designation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. MTA Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 DRIP Authorization Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 DRIP Status Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 DRIP Status Meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4 MTA Operation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Dictatorial Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19 Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 2] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 1. Introduction The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. 1.1 Motivation Source verification information transmitted as part of a mail message, such as digital signatures, can permit MTAs, MDAs, and MUAs to verify that a messages is associated with a sender or gateway. However, those methods do not prevent malware authors from: o Embedding a verifiable (signed) message in the malware. o Embedding a verifier generator (private key) in the malware. Either technique permits malware afflicted machines to send verifiable messages. DRIP is designed to force malware authors to send the malware generated mail through the relays the afflicted systems are already configured and authorized use. Operators of those relays are very likely to have an existing relationship with the operators of the afflicted systems and can act to limit the damage to the internet caused by the malware. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 3] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 1.2 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. DNS Domain Name System. See [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]. IPv4 Internet Protocol version 4. IPv6 Internet Protocol version 6. ISP Internet Service Provider. Malware Malicious software. See [RFC2828]. MDA Mail Delivery Agent. Mail Relay See MTA. MTA Mail Transfer Agent. MUA Mail User Agent. Relay See MTA. SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. See [RFC2821] Standardese A peculiar dialect employed by authors of standards. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 4] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 2. Overview Domain name owners identify and record the IP addresses that are authorized to relay mail as their domain name. How the IP addresses are identified is beyond the scope of this document, but will likely involve consultation with the postmaster for the domain name. The IP address authorization records are recorded in DNS as described in Section 3. Server MTAs verify the domain name the client MTA submitted as identification, by querying for the IP address authorization records recorded by the domain name owner. Based on the result of the query, the server MTA can determine if the domain name is a DRIP participant. If the domain name is a DRIP participant, the result of the query will also indicate if the IP address of the client is authorized to use the domain name to relay mail. Section 4 specifies the operation of server MTAs following this protocol. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 5] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3. Designating Relays Domain name owners record the designated relays by adding a specifically formatted DNS record for each IP address that is authorized to use a domain name in the SMTP HELO or EHLO commands. Default records are also added to indicate DRIP participation by the domain name, and that the IP address used in the query is NOT authorized to use the domain name to relay mail. 3.1 Designation Record Template The template for the DNS records is: ${IPS}.${IPV}.relays._email_.${DOMAIN}. IN ${TYPE} ${IP} With: ${IPS} The textual representation of the IP address. ${IPV} The textual representation of the IP protocol version used. ${DOMAIN} The domain name used in the SMTP HELO or EHLO commands. ${TYPE} The DNS record type corresponding to the IP protocol version of the IP address. ${IP} The IP address. See [RFC2782] for a discussion of the need for the underscores. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 6] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3.2 Default Designation Records The following default or "wildcard" records are added for each domain name and defined IP protocol version. These records, when returned as a result of a DRIP query, indicate DRIP participation by the domain name and that IP address used in the query is NOT authorized to use the domain name in the SMTP HELO or EHLO commands. *.${IPV}.relays._email_.${DOMAIN}. IN ${TYPE} ${IPZ} Where ${IPZ} depends on the IP protocol version. A default record returned as the result of a DRIP query is identified by the value of the record, ${IPZ}, which is defined for each IP protocol version and corresponds to the "unspecified address". Both IPv4 and IPv6 default designation records SHOULD be added for each domain name. 3.3 IPv4 Designation Records For IP version 4 addresses, the following applies: ${IPS} Textual representation of the IPv4 address of the Designated Relay in "dotted quad", also known as "dotted decimal", notation but with the dots replaced by underscores. This textual representation was chosen to be easy for both the wetware components and the software components to implement the protocol. The textual representation of the IPv4 loopback address, 127.0.0.1, is 127_0_0_1 ${IPV} "IPv4". ${TYPE} "A". ${IP} The IP address of the the Designated Relay. ${IPZ} "0.0.0.0", the IPv4 "unspecified address". Chosen because it can not be a valid client IP address when used with TCP. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 7] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3.4 IPv6 Designation Records For IP version 6 addresses, the following applies: ${IPS} Textual representation of the IPv6 address of the Designated Relay formatted as a sequence of 8 16bit words separated by underscores. Each word is represented by 4 hexadecimal digits. The words and the hexadecimal digits of a word are in network byte order. This IPv6 address representation is similar to the representation in [RFC3513] except that the colons have been replaced with underscores, and that leading zeros MUST be included. This textual representation was chosen to be easy for both the wetware components and the software components to implement the protocol. The textual representation of the IPv6 loopback address, ::1, is: 0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0001 The textual representation of the IPv6 address 2002:c000:201::1234 is: 2002_c000_0201_0000_0000_0000_0000_1234 ${IPV} "IPv6". ${TYPE} "AAAA". ${IP} The IP address of the the Designated Relay. ${IPZ} "::", the IPv6 "unspecified address". Chosen because it can not be a valid client IP address when used with TCP. MTAs with IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses [RFC3513] SHOULD also have an IPv4 DRIP record for the IPv4 part of each IPv4-compatible IPv6 address. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 8] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 3.5 Designation Examples 3.5.1 Designation Example 1 The owner of the domain name EXAMPLE.COM would add the following DNS records to the EXAMPLE.COM zone to indicate that the domain name EXAMPLE.COM is NOT valid for use in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. Default Designation Records: *.IPv4.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 0.0.0.0 *.IPv6.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN AAAA :: IPv4 Designation Records: None. IPv6 Designation Records: None. 3.5.2 Designation Example 2 The owner of the domain name M.EXAMPLE.COM would add the following DNS records to the M.EXAMPLE.COM zone to indicate that ONLY the IPv4 addresses 192.0.2.10, 192.0.2.11, and 127.0.0.1 are authorized to use the domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. Default Designation Records: *.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 0.0.0.0 *.IPv6.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN AAAA :: IPv4 Designation Records: 192_0_2_10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10 192_0_2_11.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.11 127_0_0_1.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 127.0.0.1 IPv6 Designation Records: None. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 9] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 4. MTA Operation Server MTAs use the IP address of the client MTA from the SMTP connection and the domain name, which the client submitted as identification in the SMTP HELO or EHLO command, to verify that the IP address is authorized to use the domain name to relay mail. The process for doing this is: 1. Attempt to retrieve the DRIP authorization record for the IP address and the domain name via DNS. 2. Examine the result of the DNS retrieval attempt to determine the DRIP status. 3. Continue or terminate the SMTP transaction based on the DRIP status. DRIP authorization checks may be deferred until the MAIL command in the SMTP transaction or not be performed at all for SMTP transactions where relay authorization schemes are used. Examples of relay authorization schemes are, an ISP's use of the client's IP address to allow only the ISP's customers to relay; or a corporate server MTA using SMTP AUTH to allow roaming senders to relay. 4.1 DRIP Authorization Retrieval The DRIP authorization record to retrieve is the DNS record, as described in Section 3.1, corresponding to the IP address and domain name that the client MTA identified itself as. IPv6 server MTAs MUST perform the DRIP authorization retrieval using the IPv4 address of the "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address" [RFC3513] when clients connect from IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. 4.2 DRIP Status Determination A successful retrieval of a single record of the appropriate type with the IP address in the record matching the IP address of the client has a DRIP status of DRIP_OK. The requirement that the IP address in the authorization record be the IP address of the client, is to prevent malware authors from easily designating the entire IP address space as authorized to relay as a given domain name. A successful retrieval of a single record of the appropriate type with the IP address in the record not matching the IP address of the client has a DRIP status of DRIP_NOT_OK. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 10] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Any type of temporary DNS retrieval or network failure has a DRIP status of DRIP_TEMP_FAIL. Any other type of DNS result, such as a permanent error, multiple records retrieved, retrieved record not of the correct record type, etc., has a DRIP status of DRIP_UNKNOWN. 4.3 DRIP Status Meanings The DRIP statuses have the following meanings: DRIP_OK This indicates that the IP address of the client is one of the authorized IP addresses for the domain name to use to relay mail. The SMTP transaction may continue. DRIP_NOT_OK This indicates that the IP address of the client is not one of the authorized IP addresses for the given domain name to use to relay mail. The SMTP transaction SHOULD be terminated with a permanent failure, 5XX, reply code. DRIP_TEMP_FAIL This indicates that the lookup could not be completed at this time. The SMTP transaction SHOULD be terminated with a temporary failure, 4XX, reply code. DRIP_UNKNOWN This indicates that the given domain name is not a DRIP participant. Local policy of the server MTA determines if the SMTP transaction should continue or not. A RECOMMENDED local policy is for the server MTA to, iteratively, use the parent domain names to perform more DRIP authorization retrievals. If any of those retrievals result in either a DRIP_OK status or a DRIP_NOT_OK status, the server MTA SHOULD assume that the client is NOT authorized to relay mail as the given domain name. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 11] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 4.4 MTA Operation Examples The following examples assume that the DNS records described in Section 3.5 exist and that no other DRIP related DNS records exist for the domain names used. 4.4.1 MTA Operation Example 1 A server MTA accepts an SMTP connection from IP address 192.0.2.10 and the client identifies itself as M.EXAMPLE.COM. 1. The server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record 192_0_2_10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10 via a DNS lookup. 2. The DNS lookup retrieves a single A record with the IP address 192.0.2.10. 3. Since only a single record was retrieved, it was of the correct type, and IP address in the record is the IP address of the client, the DRIP status is DRIP_OK. 4. The SMTP transaction continues. 4.4.2 MTA Operation Example 2 A server MTA accepts an SMTP connection from IP address 192.0.2.99 and the client identifies itself as S.EXAMPLE.COM. 1. The server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record 192_0_2_99.IPv4.relays._email_.S.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 via a DNS lookup. 2. The DNS lookup results in a "Name Error", indicating that the record does not exist. 3. Since the DNS lookup resulted in a permanent lookup error, the the DRIP status is DRIP_UNKNOWN and the server uses local policy to determine if the SMTP transaction should continue or not. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 12] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 4. If the server follows the RECOMMENDED local policy of performing DRIP authorization retrievals using parent domain names when a DRIP status of DRIP_UNKNOWN is encountered, the server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record 192_0_2_99.IPv4.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 via a DNS lookup. 5. The DNS lookup retrieves a single A record with the IP address 0.0.0.0. 6. Since only a single record was retrieved, and the record was of the correct type, and the IP address in the record is not the IP address of the client, the DRIP status is DRIP_NOT_OK. 7. Because this was a DRIP authorization retrieval of a parent domain and the status is of this retrieval is DRIP_OK or DRIP_NOT_OK, the server SHOULD assume that the client is NOT authorized to relay mail as the given domain name. 8. The server terminates the SMTP transaction with a permanent failure, 5XX, reply code. 4.4.3 MTA Operation Example 3 A server MTA accepts an SMTP connection from IP address ::FFFF:C000:263 and the client identifies itself as S.EXAMPLE.COM. Because the IP address of the client is the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address of 192.0.2.99, the server MUST perform the same operations as in Section 4.4.2. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 13] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 5. Security Considerations This method relies on DNS to verify relay authorization and as such is vulnerable to the security issues of DNS. However, this is no different than mail, in general, being vulnerable to DNS security issues. Sites concerned about this should investigate implementing [RFC2401] and/or [RFC2535]. A likely, and intended, response of malware authors to wide spread adoption of DRIP is to search afflicted systems for MUA settings and use the configured gateways, and possibly identities and credentials, to mail their payloads. It is hoped that the gateway operators will notice the undesirable traffic and be able to do something about it. The gateway operators already have a relationship with the operator(s) of the afflicted systems and are in a much better position, than the internet at large, to be able to correct the problem. DRIP is intended and designed to help protect your systems from the malware afflicted systems of others. Not to protect your systems from your own malware afflicted systems. Sites concerned about this should investigate the use of malware detectors on their systems. While not a security consideration, DRIP does not provide any assurances to the server MTA that the mail being relayed from the client is not SPAM; only that the IP address of the client MTA is authorized to relay mail as the domain name, the client identified itself as, in the SMTP EHLO or HELO command. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 14] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Normative References [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. [RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001. [RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 15] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Informative References [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1886] Thomson, S. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995. [RFC1925] Callon, R., "The Twelve Networking Truths", RFC 1925, April 1996. [RFC1983] Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983, August 1996. [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999. [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. [RFC2828] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", RFC 2828, May 2000. Authors' Addresses Raymond S Brand P.O. Box 100486 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33310 US EMail: rsbx@acm.org URI: http://www.RSBX.com/ Laurence Sherzer P.O. Box 5072 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 US EMail: laurence@sherzer.net URI: http://www.sherzer.net/ Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 16] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Appendix A. Dictatorial Powers Any measure to control SPAM, if it is to be effective, must create or enhance the power of one or more entities involved in moving email from the source to the destination(s). The method described in this document enhances the ability of the domain name owner to control which MTAs may identify themselves as a domain name. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 17] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Appendix B. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Robert M. Bownes III, and Richard Rognlie. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 18] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 19] =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Brand & Sherzer Expires December 27, 2003 [Page 20] =0C --------------B6B187448567954020BCEA0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="draft_diff.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft_diff.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --- draft-brand-drip-00.txt Tue Jun 24 12:18:23 2003 +++ draft-brand-drip-00.txt Sat Jun 28 11:11:16 2003 @@ -362,14 +362,15 @@ = ${IPS} Textual representation of the IPv4 address of the Designated Relay= - in "dotted quad", also known as "dotted decimal", notation. This - textual representation was chosen to be easy for both the wetware - components and the software components to implement the protocol. + in "dotted quad", also known as "dotted decimal", notation but + with the dots replaced by underscores. This textual representation= + was chosen to be easy for both the wetware components and the + software components to implement the protocol. = The textual representation of the IPv4 loopback address, 127.0.0.1, is = - 127.0.0.1 + 127_0_0_1 = ${IPV} "IPv4". @@ -387,7 +388,6 @@ = = = - Brand & Sherzer Expires December 23, 2003 [Page 7]= =0C Internet-Draft DRIP June 2003= @@ -399,23 +399,23 @@ = ${IPS} Textual representation of the IPv6 address of the Designated Relay= - formatted as a sequence of 8 16bit words separated by dots. Each - word is represented by 4 hexadecimal digits. The words and the - hexadecimal digits of a word are in network byte order. This IPv6 - address representation is similar to the representation in - [RFC3513] except that the colons have been replaced with dots, and= - that leading zeros MUST be included. This textual representation - was chosen to be easy for both the wetware components and the - software components to implement the protocol. + formatted as a sequence of 8 16bit words separated by underscores.= + Each word is represented by 4 hexadecimal digits. The words and + the hexadecimal digits of a word are in network byte order. This + IPv6 address representation is similar to the representation in + [RFC3513] except that the colons have been replaced with + underscores, and that leading zeros MUST be included. This textual= + representation was chosen to be easy for both the wetware + components and the software components to implement the protocol. = The textual representation of the IPv6 loopback address, ::1, is: = - 0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001 + 0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0001 = The textual representation of the IPv6 address 2002:c000:201::1234= is: = - 2002.c000.0201.0000.0000.0000.0000.1234 + 2002_c000_0201_0000_0000_0000_0000_1234 = ${IPV} "IPv6". @@ -487,11 +487,11 @@ = IPv4 Designation Records: = - 192.0.2.10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10= + 192_0_2_10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10= = - 192.0.2.11.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.11= + 192_0_2_11.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.11= = - 127.0.0.1.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 127.0.0.1 + 127_0_0_1.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 127.0.0.1 = IPv6 Designation Records: = @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ = 1. The server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record = - 192.0.2.10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10 + 192_0_2_10.IPv4.relays._email_.M.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.10 = via a DNS lookup. = @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ = 1. The server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record = - 192.0.2.99.IPv4.relays._email_.S.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 + 192_0_2_99.IPv4.relays._email_.S.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 = via a DNS lookup. = @@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ DRIP status of DRIP_UNKNOWN is encountered, the server attempts to retrieve the DRIP authorization record = - 192.0.2.99.IPv4.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 + 192_0_2_99.IPv4.relays._email_.EXAMPLE.COM. IN A 192.0.2.99 = via a DNS lookup. = --------------B6B187448567954020BCEA0B-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 13:30:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27985 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SHTmV04551 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:29:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJWG-0001BK-Ab for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:29:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27973; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJWE-0004Tm-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:29:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJW8-0004Tj-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:29:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJVU-00013w-Pc; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:29:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJUP-00013S-W2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:28:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27959 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJUN-0004TI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:27:51 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJUD-0004T2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:27:41 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WJTH-0001oZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:26:43 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:12:30 EDT." <5.2.1.1.0.20030628110543.00ba2ca8@mail.microneil.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:26:43 -0400 Madscientist wrote: > I must respectfully but strongly disagree. An increase in cost, in general, > does not focus on the root problem of abuse, but does carry with it a host > of undesirable artifacts (well covered elsewhere). Cost does not always mean money. One way of increasing the transaction cost for spam is simply to use filters. The spammer has engaged in a transaction which costed him something, and which has not resulted in his desired outcome. > It is possible with technical means to drastically reduce the potential for > abuse without increasing costs (fiduciary or otherwise). The goal should be > to make spam (and other forms of abuse) impractical rather than simply > unprofitable. Did I say anything about money or profit? There is a cost to engaging in network traffic: time, CPU power, and so on. There is a cost to transactions on the network. Packet filters, etc., all increase the transaction cost of network conversations. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 13:41:20 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28102 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SHeob07456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:40:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJgw-0001wB-Ng for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:40:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28088; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJgu-0004VZ-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:40:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJgo-0004VW-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:40:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJg9-0001pV-OB; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WJfF-0001lf-AG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:39:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28077 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJfD-0004VC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:39:03 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WJf2-0004V9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:38:52 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WJeL-0001ol-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:38:09 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:18 BST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:38:09 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > If no-one is using (receiving) email, why will the spammers > send it? At that extreme, they won't. Then people will start using email again, because there's no spam. Then the spammers will attack again. Repeat until you regurgitate. This isn't difficult to figure out... Spammers will increase the volume of their traffic until they are just barely more than breaking even. That's guaranteed. I'll bet money that the number of people using email then will be lower than it is today, and that those people will have massively increased costs for their SMTP infrastructure. I doubt this is the goal of the current opposition to anti-spam solutions, but it's definitely the end result. So my original statement that "no one" will be using email was exagerated for effect. I still believe it's substantially true, though. The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in that, too. Then what? We'll probably have SMTP for people willing to put up with the deluge of spam, and eventually a new, non-spammy protocol for people who have gotten frustrated with the "fingers in the ears" attitude towards changing SMTP. But for a long period, there will be duplicate email systems, and massive political fights. Let's face it, SMTP (as it was in the 1980's) is irrevocably dead. Spam has killed it, and we need to accept that fact. Whether the new non-spammy protocol is SMTP++, or something else, is irrelevant. We need to do *something* more than believe that SMTP was created by God, and that anyone changing it will be cursed forever. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 14:35:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29159 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SIZLT16875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:35:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WKXh-0004O5-HD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:35:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29091; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WKUK-0004mE-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:31:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WKUE-0004mB-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:31:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WKTV-000461-Sh; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WKTM-00045G-Oa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:30:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28941 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WKSH-0004lI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:29:45 -0400 Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WKS6-0004kw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:29:34 -0400 Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id A128129C033; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BEC129C030 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from toshiba-user.microneil.com [63.86.179.204] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id AE2DF4900132; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:57 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030628135927.00bc4cc0@mail.microneil.com> X-Sender: madscientist@mail.microneil.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Madscientist Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Declude-Spoolname: Dde2d132.SMD Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:27:58 -0400 At 01:26 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: >Madscientist wrote: > > It is possible with technical means to drastically reduce the potential > for > > abuse without increasing costs (fiduciary or otherwise). The goal > should be > > to make spam (and other forms of abuse) impractical rather than simply > > unprofitable. > > Did I say anything about money or profit? > > There is a cost to engaging in network traffic: time, CPU power, and >so on. There is a cost to transactions on the network. Packet >filters, etc., all increase the transaction cost of network >conversations. > > Alan DeKok. That was, perhaps, a poor choice of words on my part... discussions of increasing the cost to spammers are often linked to the theory that making it unprofitable would make it go away - you did not make that argument directly, apologies. Also, when I said "fiduciary and otherwise" I meant to explicitly include the costs you mention, as well as the costs to the users and other stakeholders (answering challenges for example). My point was that a subtle difference exists between a focus toward increasing the cost of abuse and a focus toward preventing and disabling abuse. Filters, tar-pitting, and similar methods are subtly different from denying service to abuse sources in that the latter is a more absolute and arguably more efficient reaction. If a source of abuse is detected and then automatically denied access to the network until the abuse subsides then far fewer resources are required at all points in the system. A focus on raising the cost of abuse leads to deterrents whereas a focus on thwarting abuse leads more directly toward elimination. I recognize that the possibility for abuse exists in any open system, however I think it is possible and should be our focus to structure the system so that abuse is ineffective for any other purpose and as practically impossible as can be achieved. The problem with spam is two fold: (1) That the abuse is possible, and (2) that the abuse can be leveraged to another goal: profit. For example, it is possible to ping flood an unprotected system and disable it, but there is little motivation to do such a thing. While it is possible to broadly transmit unwanted content to undefended systems (spam), the difference is that there is tremendous motivation to do so. As a result we see a _lot_ more spam than ping floods (or similar abuses). I consider both cases fundamentally as a technically preventable form of abuse. It is possible to detect a ping flood and immediately mount a defense by blocking (disconnecting) network access to the source. I belive that similar mechanisms should be used for spam or other abuse sources, and that our focus should be on the development of open protocols, standads, and changes to existing protocols that give rise to that kind of response. Sorry for any confusion. _M _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 15:54:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01700 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SJqrt29989 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:52:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WLkj-0007nc-6J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:52:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01637; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WLkh-0005E7-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:52:51 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WLkc-0005E4-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:52:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WLjs-0007f4-W0; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WLjS-0007cr-MC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:51:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01592 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WLjC-0005Ck-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:51:18 -0400 Received: from www.fastmail.fm ([66.111.4.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WLj1-0005CL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:51:07 -0400 Received: from www.fastmail.fm (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E9C4CC8; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=www.fastmail.fm) by messagingengine.com with SMTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:50:37 -0400 X-Mail-from: matthew@elvey.com X-Spam-score: 0 X-Epoch: 1056829837 X-Sasl-enc: nwLThh/uDoEx1Pm3P37SLg Received: from elvey.com (adsl-66-126-168-113.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [66.126.168.113]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBD771E9; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:50:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EFDF186.5080909@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030612 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:50:30 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Boy, it seems like an increasing number of the posts I've seen since this list started come from posters who seem to be gravely misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation. (General comment, not directed at Kee or Howard!) I hope this is something the ASRG reorg will try to address. It seems like the discussion of the most promising proposals is exceedingly rare. :-( Apropos RMX (mail-from Reverse MX) and a similar proposal: Kee Hinckley wrote: > At 6:09 PM -0700 6/27/03, Howard Roth wrote: > >> The idea behind this concept is to not modify current software, but >> provide >> additional stand-alone software that provides sender accountability. > > > In what way does this not modify existing software? The MTAs have to > be modified to support it, correct? No, just the MUAs. Also, I think Howard Roth is mistaken, in that if the current versions of qmail, sendmail, and postfix supported RMX, the Internet would be most of the way to adoption. Exchange and Notes would likely follow, and another inevitable security bug announcement in a few of them will cause the vast majority to upgrade. Result: the Internet is RMX ready for any domain that wishes to do so to roll out and have it be highly effective. Trying to get the majority of the world's MUA end users to upgrade is much more difficult, IMO. I had cisco.com and some other major domains whitelisted for a while, but had to remove 'em due to repeated spam 'From' them. abuse@.com seemed uninterested in pursuing abuse of their trademark. > > >> Basically, the intent is for this method to be completely transparent >> to the >> users and therefore have no impact on web-mail services. I am >> familiar with >> my web-mail services using Ipswitch mail server software, but there >> may be >> other issues that you are alluding to that I may not be aware of. > > > The issue is that people send mail "from" one domain while using the > mail servers of another. This is done all the time for perfectly > legitimate reasons. Not only is it done on an individual level, it is > also done regularly in mass commercial mailings (which are sent by one > company on behalf of another). Using the "reply to" to authenticate > breaks all of that. Yahoo users can only send mail using Yahoo's web > mail. Macromedia can't send mail from "support@macromedia.com" using > mx0's mail servers, and so on. This capability is NOT broken with the RMX proposal. Any legitimate users WILL be able to use the domain of their choice. There are at least 3 ways yahoo users could continue to use their own servers in an RMX-compatible world. Mailing list servers need to be responsible for the email they send (in the RMX sense), and with some minor tweaking, will be (some already are). In an RMX world, domain-based DNSRBLs can be highly effective, with low false positives and low false negatives. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 16:20:18 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02479 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SKJon03384 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WMAo-0000sV-6D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02465; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WMAm-0005Sj-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WMAg-0005Sd-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WMA1-0000lT-3I; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WM95-0000jM-2B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:18:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02445 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WM8o-0005S2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:17:46 -0400 Received: from mms.tumbleweed.com ([216.148.232.2] helo=mms-rc.tumbleweed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WM8d-0005Ru-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:17:35 -0400 Received: from 10.1.5.15 by mms-rc.tumbleweed.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:16:30 -0700 Received: from tumbleweed.com (circle.tumbleweed.com [10.1.60.104]) by pigeon.tumbleweed with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N4LG729Q; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFDF79E.3010204@tumbleweed.com> From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" Organization: Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (http://www.tumbleweed.com ) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bob@wyman.us cc: "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <000c01c33cf7$e4e1ae50$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-WSS-ID: 12E32814549743-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:16:30 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob > The kind of certificate needed in a system like I'm suggesting > here can be very minimal and even self-generated. You don't, for > instance, have to worry about having any CA that issues the things. You > can just create an arbitrary public key and publish it via the > certificate server of your choice. The reason for this is that you are > asking the server's DNS server itself to tell you where to find the > server's key. As long as you trust that you are speaking to the server's > DNS, you can invest reasonable trust in any statements it makes. Using signature to authenticate sounds like a good idea ;-). Plus s/mime has been around for a while and server-to-server s/mime is available in commercial products for several years now. But the idea of using self-signed certificates (vs CA) is not going to work well because they are free. The spammers will simply do what they do today with the spamvertised URLs' hosts and keep using new ones because domain cost is low enough (<$10 today). Using a CA could introduce a new cost in the spammer economics (plus force some basic validation depending on cert class). But until the vast majority of the legitimate MTAs support some verification (with or without digital signature), no one can start to refuse unauthenticated inbound mails. So the benefits in that (long) transition period seems to be: - ability to increase probability of an email being spam if sender is not verified. - ability to have reliable white/black sender domain lists on verified senders _if_ the cost of creating new 'verified sender domains' is high enough. jean _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 17:21:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03243 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SLLGS11993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WN8G-00037M-GQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03239; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WN8E-0005fB-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WN88-0005f8-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WN80-00034t-Il; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WN7v-00034i-Tn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:20:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03235 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WN7e-0005f5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:20:38 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WN7T-0005ey-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:20:27 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5SLJq2v002654 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:19:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306282119.h5SLJq2v002654@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <3EFDF186.5080909@elvey.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:19:52 -0600 (MDT) > From: Matthew Elvey > Boy, it seems like an increasing number of the posts I've seen since > this list started come from posters who seem to be gravely misinformed > or deliberately spreading misinformation. (General comment, not directed > at Kee or Howard!) I hope this is something the ASRG reorg will try to > address. It seems like the discussion of the most promising proposals is > exceedingly rare. :-( We agree about some of that, but we may disagree about which is the information and which is the misinformation. Other IRTF mailing lists have been effective or at least interesting. ASRG has been none of the first and little of the second so far. For example, end2end has long suffered the noise of those who wish that research would consist of advocacy instead of doing one's own measurements, simulations, coding, tests, trials, and even deployment. Howver, end2end has also had people who are not only would be gurus or leaders. The most reasonable ASRG thread concerned Graylisting. That report was of measured results from real code in the real world, unlike the white papers about RMX, consent, and the rest. Various spam filtering is done on at least 50% of all mailboxes. (Doesn't Brightmail claim 40%?) If those filters are at least 50% effective, then more than 25% of all spam in the Internet is already being handled. That's consistent with the reports of many that their personal spam loads are lower than they were years ago. Many mailboxes are like mine, suffering an entirely tolerable load of spam of fewer than 1-4 spam/week. Contrast that fact with the positions of advocates for various silver bullets. They talk as if public, long term mailboxes like mine must receive many spam/day and about stopping practically all of that spam with their wonderful solutions. None advert to the fact that at least half of the field has alreading been taken by others who range from silent (e.g. Postini, and SpamPal) to practically silent (Brightmail and Cloudmark) to extremely quiet (SpamAssassin). That's not to say that the current solutions are sufficient, but that anyone who claimsto have a sliver bullet is spreading misinformation. Dealing with spam today is about like networking 15 or 25 years ago. NCP and TCP before congestion control and avoidance were useful. The claims of the ISO OSI, Appletalk, NETBUI, and other silver bullet mongers and research framework leaders eventually came to naught. There is still good research to be done on TCP, and so I continue to read end2end. I try to ignore the wannabe leaders and would be gurus, some of whom who are still pitching x.25. > ... > Result: the Internet is RMX ready > for any domain that wishes to do so to roll out and have it be highly > effective. Effective in what way? The most commonly used sender domain names in spam are those of the free providers. (My measurements on ~30K recent spam imply >40% of spam currently involves free provider sender domains.) Please offer some evidence that the major free mail providers would go along any sort of RMX system. Outblaze is widely seen as one of the most anti-spam free providers. Please point out the words in a web page (perhaps starting at http://outblaze.com/index.php ) where the owners of the 30,000,000 Outblaze mailboxes are told to send only through Outblaze's servers. Feel free to point out such words in Hotmail's, Yahoo's, or some other major free (or non-free) mail service provider's terms of service. > Trying to get the majority of the world's MUA end users to > upgrade is much more difficult, IMO. > I had cisco.com and some other major domains whitelisted for a while, > but had to remove 'em due to repeated spam 'From' them. > abuse@.com seemed uninterested in pursuing abuse of their > trademark. That's interesting when you think about it. Please offer some evidence other than your personal assurances that Cisco would restrict employees from sending mail with cisco.com sender addresses from random locations including their homes, customer sites, hotels, and even airplanes in order to stop that abuse of their trademark. > ... > > The issue is that people send mail "from" one domain while using the > > mail servers of another. This is done all the time for perfectly > > legitimate reasons. Not only is it done on an individual level, it is > > also done regularly in mass commercial mailings (which are sent by one > > company on behalf of another). Using the "reply to" to authenticate > > breaks all of that. Yahoo users can only send mail using Yahoo's web > > mail. Macromedia can't send mail from "support@macromedia.com" using > > mx0's mail servers, and so on. > > This capability is NOT broken with the RMX proposal. Any legitimate > users WILL be able to use the domain of their choice. There are at > least 3 ways yahoo users could continue to use their own servers in an > RMX-compatible world. That is so wrong that it qualifies as what you called "misinformation." Why didn't you touch on those three ways Yahoo uses could use "their own servers"? Was it because expecting users to adjust the DNS records for the IP addresses from which they are sending mail at the moment would sound so completely unrealistic? Some RMX-like proposals require adjusting among the RRs of the SMTP client based on its IP address. Those are merely grossly implausible. Other RMX-like proposals that use RRs in the envelope sender zone domain are worse, given the fact that free providers show no signs of objecting to their users sending from elsewhere. > ... > In an RMX world, domain-based DNSRBLs can be highly effective, with low > false positives and low false negatives. Domain and IP address based DNS based blacklists can be highly effective with quite low false positive and a usefully low false negative rates outside RMX worlds. The reason that there are so few domain based DNS blacklists is that the easy choices fairly static, and because the legal liabilities sound worse. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 17:25:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03342 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SLP9O13091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNC1-0003Oj-KV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03334; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNBz-0005gh-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNBt-0005ge-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNBu-0003Hp-3w; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:25:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNB4-0003HO-Im for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03320 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNB2-0005gK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:24:08 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNAq-0005gA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:23:57 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5SLNqXj003438 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:23:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306282123.h5SLNqXj003438@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <3EFDF79E.3010204@tumbleweed.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:23:52 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" > ... > But until the vast majority of the legitimate MTAs support > some verification (with or without digital signature), no one > can start to refuse unauthenticated inbound mails. ... Which major MTAs don't have current versions that support SMTP-TLS and SMTL-AUTH? That might be considered a trick question, given the years that sendmail and others have supported both. I'm not sure the original question is not equally tricky. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 17:48:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03629 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SLmBD16346 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNYJ-0004FZ-Jn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03625; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNYH-0005kl-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNYB-0005ki-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNY9-0004DZ-92; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNXN-0004D3-PO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:47:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03611 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNXL-0005kJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:47:11 -0400 Received: from bay8-f51.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.51] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNXA-0005jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:47:00 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:46:01 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:46:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Second Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2003 21:46:01.0283 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAA9A130:01C33DBE] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:46:01 +0000 Thankyou for your responses to The Solution To Spam - The First Response. My responses are in the body of the text below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' Anti-Spam system. The details can be viewed here, updates will be posted in the course of the next few days, please check regularly: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Thankyou for the feedback on this matter, Mark McCarron. At 3:47 AM +0000 6/28/03, Mark McCarron wrote: >The graphic is for email clients such as Outlook=20 >express and Eudora, etc.  A new graphic is=20 >downloaded for each email.  The system has no=20 >intention of stopping legitimate email even=20 >automated systems.  They just register with an=20 >'EAS' provider and all mail is sent through it.=20 >Legitimate businesses will have to provide legal=20 >company registration details (such as reg.=20 >company number, etc).  They receive a special=20 >code, upon agreeing to a legally binding This list has had this type of discussion before. Those are approximately the requirements=20 necessary for an SSL certificate.  SSL=20 certificates currently last one year at about=20 $100/cert.  The margins are such that virtually=20 no background checks are done.  And of course=20 there is no revocation, arbitration or=20 verification done for how you use it afterwards.=20 I would guess that, at a minimum, the level of=20 support you are requesting would result in a fee=20 on the order of $1000/year in order to support=20 the necessary infrastructure and support needs.=20 It might be somewhat lower because the volume of=20 sales would be many orders of magnitude higher=20 than SSL certs, but I can't see it being any=20 cheaper. Mark's response: This system does not use SSL nor will it ever. It will use (most likely) a modified version of a PGP source as the basis of it's encryption method. Therefore, the prices you quoted are not accurate. Additionally you need another class of=20 certification there, and I don't know how you're=20 going to do it.  Mail servers are run by many=20 people, not just "registered" companies.=20 Validating a random individual is even harder=20 than validating companies.  (Never mind what=20 happens when you have someone like a friend of=20 mine, a long-time security expert, who has never=20 owned a credit card in his life.) Mark's response: Individuals who run mail servers for there own private use will not have access to 'GIEIS'. They should move to an email client and connect through an ISPs 'EAS'. Also, no credit card, no access. >Excellent points.  Let's deal with the first=20 >one, there is millions of mail servers in the=20 >world, however, all these mail servers have one=20 >thing in common, they are linked to the internet=20 >backbone via some form of ISP.  This is why I am=20 >referring to ISPs.  Therefore, we take this=20 >common point and Yes and no.  There are millions of mail servers.=20 Those mail servers are connected through an=20 "ISP".  However in the case of most company=20 connections that ISP does *not* currently provide=20 email service (or if they do, not at the QoS=20 required by the company).  So you are asking all=20 of those ISPs to start providing a service that=20 they don't currently provide at all, never mind=20 how you are going to integrate that into the=20 company email servers. Mark's Response: Essentially, yes. There would be an adopt of die policy. Legal frameworks, especially those concering International law are expensive and time consuming. The truth is to get 'near global' legal compliance could take decades. By this stage, the Internet as you now know it, would be a thing of the past. Sacrafices must be made, if I have to amputate to save a patient's life, then I will do it. Integration will be the responsibility of the ISP concerned. If adopted by the major industry players of ISP and email, there would be nothing the rest of the world could do about it. Even through legal challanges. There is no law stating you cannot take all reasonable steps to protect your network. >independant body.  If set up in partnership with=20 >the largest email and ISP providers, then the=20 >rest of the industry would be assured of its=20 >reputation, Let's see.  That would be AOL and Microsoft.  What am I assured of?  :-^ Mark's Response: This document and system is not here to pass a 'popularity' test with Internet users. It is aimed at the large corporations with the cash-flow to support the system. Not only will this system eliminate spam, but the majority of email based assaults on remote machines, chain-mail, and scam emails. The system will be between 99-100% effective and will run a zero-tolerance program. >  furthermore, the system must operate within=20 >legal boundries.  Mailing lists must be=20 >associated with a bonafide website, also they=20 >must contact 'GIEIS' What is a "bonafide" website, and how do you tell? Mark's response: By making the hosting company part liable under our 'Terms of Agreement' without which, they cannot send emails. Also, further checks are done with the ISP involved, who must provide a written reference sponsoring them to 'GIEIS'. >  directly for setup.  A credit card will be=20 >required and a $1 (=A31) charge will be made to=20 >it.  Also, a mailing adress and telephone=20 >contact information would be required.  They=20 >will receive a written copy of the 'Terms of=20 >Service' which they must sign and send back to=20 >'GIEIS'.  Upon reception 'GIEIS' will implement=20 >the account with their ISP.  The emails then=20 >sent will be analysed by heuristics.  Each=20 >message will also be parsed for HTML code, such=20 >as IMAGE tags and jpg, bmp images.  As the=20 >majority of mailing systems use either ASCII or=20 >UNICODE text only, spam can be detected, blocked=20 >and the offender's credit card billed with a=20 >fine.  I have not placed estimates on the cost=20 >of implementation.  The industry is loosing $12=20 >Billion a year, even if the partnership spent $1=20 >Billion per year (an outragous amount) they=20 >would still be saving $11 Billion.  The=20 >'beancounter' (accountants) would love that. There are several problems here. =46irst of all, when you see all those numbers=20 about "losing" $12billion, they don't mean that=20 literally.  They are talking about productivity=20 costs and opportunity costs and such.  The "fact"=20 that spam costs $12B does not mean that companies=20 have $12B to spend if it went away.  Furthermore,=20 the costs of spam are spread over millions of=20 people, whereas the costs of your service are=20 focused on a much smaller group of companies. Mark's Response: You don't know I am a mathematician and a trained UK accountant as well. So, I will not be harsh on you :) Productivity costs, refers to increased wage/production payments. This is an expense, a VERY real cash-flow, I can assure you. The same goes for lost business opportunities, this is source of capital, another VERY real cash-flow. Their reference to $12 Billion is therefore, extremely literal. These costs are not spread across millions of people, no one has the time to do research like that. Quotes like that are often solely based upon the Fortune 500 companies. Also, you need to rethink the scale of the email=20 system.  You are envisioning centralized systems=20 using complicated software to analyze the content=20 of email messages.  First of all--there's no way=20 in hell anyone is going to allow a third party to=20 analyze the content of their email.  Secondly,=20 the existing mail system carries billions of=20 messages a day.  The infrastructure to analyze=20 that kind of flow simply does not exist, nor is=20 likely to. Mark's Response: All suspect email communications are intercepted at the telecommunications level by government authorities in each nation, in the US it by the NSA/CIA, and in the UK it is the GCHQ. If they do not agree to analysis of mailing lists, then they simply will be excluded from 'GIEIS' systems. As I stated before, I am not seeking 'popularity' vote, but rather a complete end to fraudulent email of any form through forced measures. 'GIEIS' is designed to be the equivilent of a digital army. Of course the infrastructure exists, we can currently send that volume, there is no problem in analysing it too. If government agencies can perform heuristics of over 50 Million voice communications in 30 minutes then analysing email will be a walk-in-the-park. >True.  However, there will most likely be a=20 >period of introduction, for example 6 months.=20 >Then there will be a D-Day from which point, the=20 >system becomes exclusive.  This will force the=20 >rest of the industry to adopt or face not being=20 >able to communicate with other networks.  The=20 >result of non-compliance would be the loss of=20 >their customer base. Millions of end users would have to update their=20 software (if it's possible--often, especially in=20 the third world, they may be running machines and=20 operating systems which are no longer supported).=20 Millions of MTAs changed.  ISPs implementing new=20 software that has never been tested.  Entirely=20 new business relationships with all of the ISP=20 clients.  New requirements on how email is=20 routed, with all company email going through=20 centralized servers that didn't exist before.=20 The creation of an extra-govermental organization=20 with the ability to put any company out of=20 business at a whim. This isn't an anti-spam proposal.  It's something out of George Orwell :-). Mark's Response: Drastic problems require drastic solutions. Current policies and blocking attempts are only adding to the problem. This will end the issue once-and-for-all. It would be Orwellean if there was some form of censorship was involved, however, no one is suggesting this. You almost make it sound like a conspiracy is going on. I would ask you to consider this, think of all the emails you have sent today, why would 'GIEIS' waste good money on hiring someone to read your (or anyone elses) email? Frankly, I don't think we would be really interested in who is doing who, who is fighting with who, who is who's best friend. Also, as I stated before, government agencies all over the world already have this capability. As for upgrading millions of users, there is already a push for the new IP standard to be implemented by the US Military. It would be no different than this, give it 6 months to one year and the change over will be complete then 'GIEIS' will patrol the Internet. >blind and severely visually impaired.  We have=20 >not forgot about this highly important client=20 >base.  Such as a simple puzzle in brail,=20 >something that would be difficult to automate=20 >for but simple enough for a human to do. Umm.  Blind computer users do not use braille to=20 read the screen.  They use screen readers that=20 read the text to them.  But anyway, I'm sure you=20 could deal with it. Mark's response: Are you trying to tell me braille output does not exist? I have installed quite a number personally. Also, a screen reader can read a puzzle just as well as any other text. You are quite correct, I can deal with it. However on the whole, I would say that the=20 proposal is socially, politically, commercially=20 and technically impossible to implement.  It=20 makes incorrect assumptions about how people use=20 email, how they update software, how companies do=20 business, how ISPs do business, how email travels=20 from point a to point b and who sends it. Mark's Response: Social and political concerns are of no interest. It is technically feasible, beyond any doubt, or the system concept could not have even been designed. Also, commercial companies would benfits from the system being able to reach a wider audience as people will not have spam to fear from by subscribing to corporate information/mailing lists. Add to this the additional capital saved plus the additional revenue gained from new customers and our commercial companies will be extremely happy. The system makes no such assumptions. It re-writes the rule book. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 18:12:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04605 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SMCDq19858 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNvZ-0005AD-1R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04549; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNvW-0005n8-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNvQ-0005n5-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNvM-00058K-RM; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNuf-000585-Ns for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:11:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04474 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:11:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNud-0005my-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:11:15 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr9.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNuS-0005mp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:11:04 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr9.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id PHE83458; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (localhost.verisignmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJQ57736; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306282210.AJQ57736@ms3.verisignmail.com> Received: from 66.65.26.16 by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with HTTP/1.1; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:10:44 -0400 From: Bob Wyman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability To: Jean-Christophe Bandini Cc: bob@wyman.us, "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Reply-To: bob@wyman.us X-Mailer: Webmail Mirapoint Direct 3.2.2-GA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:10:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jean-Christophe Bandini wrote: > But the idea of using self-signed certificates (vs CA) > is not going to work well because they are free. I think you are mixing issues here. (i.e. technical and economic) What my suggestion covered was a technical method for permitting the recipient of a mail message to determine if that mail message had, in fact, been sent by the server identified in the received message's header information. I believe that the method that I proposed does, in fact, provide this capability and I believe it does so in a manner which is more efficient and effective than the method which was proposed by Howard Roth in the message to which I was responding. I believe it would be useful to first determine whether or not the technical approach works and then deal with the question of whether or not economic issues are relevant to the utility of the proposed method. The two issues need to be discussed distinctly. > The spammers will simply do what they do today with the > spamvertised URLs' hosts and keep using new ones because > domain cost is low enough (<$10 today). I suggest that the cost to implement this proposal is completely independent of its utility. Also, it is irrelevant to the utility of this proposal if spammers are able to create even vast numbers of domains that all use the method I propose. The point is to allow a receiver to verify that the claimed sending server is, in fact, the one that sent the message. The method will verify spammer's machines just as well as non-spammers. > Using a CA could introduce a new cost in the spammer > economics (plus force some basic validation depending > on cert class). Sure, we could make it more expensive for everyone to send mail in order to squeeze out the spammers. But, we'll squeeze out a large number of other people at the same time. Using such a blunt method should only be considered if there are no alternatives. In this case, simply raising costs won't accomplish much. >But until the vast majority of the legitimate MTAs support >some verification (with or without digital signature), no one >can start to refuse unauthenticated inbound mails. Right. So, don't refuse them. Simply mark them as "suspect." Then, let the mail clients deal with presenting them, filing them in "gray inboxes" etc. > So the benefits in that (long) transition period seems to > be:- ability to have reliable white/black sender domain > lists on verified senders _if_ the cost of creating new > 'verified sender domains' is high enough. Wrong. You don't have to make domain creation expensive in order to have confidence in white/black domain lists as long as you can verify the source of a message. My proposal allows you to have confidence in the utility of your lists even though it adds zero cost to domain creation. >- ability to increase probability of an email being spam if > sender is not verified. Any anti-spam method that relies on the fact that spammers might not follow some technical guidelines is doomed to failure. You must assume that spammers will follow all of the technical rules -- they just don't follow the moral or legal rules. Any other set of assumptions will result in systems that are trivial to get around - simply by following the rules. We should be using a discipline here much like that used by the security folk. It is a well known maxim of security system design that you must not rely on secret methods in designing your systems. You must assume that the enemy knows everything about your system and even has the source code. Similarly, we should assume that spammers not only "have the source code" but they follow all the rules as well. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 18:13:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04721 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SMDHE20645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:13:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNwb-0005Mu-Px for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:13:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04656; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNwO-0005nW-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:13:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNwJ-0005nT-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNwL-0005FK-Ba; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WNvb-0005Dm-G2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04558 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNvY-0005n4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:12 -0400 Received: from mms.tumbleweed.com ([216.148.232.2] helo=mms-rc.tumbleweed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WNvN-0005mz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:12:02 -0400 Received: from 10.1.5.15 by mms-rc.tumbleweed.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:10:54 -0700 Received: from tumbleweed.com (circle.tumbleweed.com [10.1.60.104]) by pigeon.tumbleweed with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N4LG7JF4; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:10:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFE126E.4030505@tumbleweed.com> From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" Organization: Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (http://www.tumbleweed.com ) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vernon Schryver" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <3EFDF79E.3010204@tumbleweed.com> <200306282123.h5SLNqXj003438@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-WSS-ID: 12E0CDE4551011-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:10:54 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon > Which major MTAs don't have current versions that support SMTP-TLS > and SMTL-AUTH? Signing at the first MTA seems a bit stronger but you are right that TLS can also be used. But it seems the problem remains that: - there needs to be a critical mass of actual deployments (without it one cannot refuse non TLS inbound or whatever other scheme is chosen) - there needs to be an acceptance of certificates more costly than self-signed which a spammer can keep on generating like for domains. Thanks, jean _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 18:32:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05426 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SMWBR23036 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOEt-0005zT-9S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05419; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOEq-0005yW-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOEk-0005yT-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOEi-0005xX-NP; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOEK-0005xB-Bz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05413 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOEH-0005yG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:33 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr8.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOE6-0005yD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:22 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr8.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ANF78720; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (localhost.verisignmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJQ59985; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306282231.AJQ59985@ms3.verisignmail.com> Received: from 66.65.26.16 by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with HTTP/1.1; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:13 -0400 From: Bob Wyman Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability To: Vernon Schryver Cc: asrg@ietf.org Reply-To: bob@wyman.us X-Mailer: Webmail Mirapoint Direct 3.2.2-GA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:31:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >Ok, but why do you care about servers instead of persons? Because that was the focus of the message to which I was responding! The base proposal was for a system that involved recipient's mail servers exchanging messages with a sender's servers in order to verify which server had sent the message. I was pointing out that this sort of bandwidth heavy exchange can be eliminated by using signatures instead. > It sounds as if you are making the familiar assumption that > every legitimate sender transmits only via a small number > of SMTP clients. I make no such assumption. Also, such an assumption would be irrelevant to this discussion since we're only talking about verifying servers -- not clients. > why is it any harder for a spammer to get a signed, > throw-away domain name than to get a throw-away personal > or other certificate? Why should it be hard? As far as I can see, there are only two useful reasons to verifying the identity of a sending server: First, so that you can build white/black lists and Second, so that you can detect false statements in mail headers. Of the two, the first is clearly the most important. Both of these two benefits arise from verification whether it is cheap or expensive. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 18:33:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05454 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SMX6l23685 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:33:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOFm-00069w-J5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:33:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05446; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOFj-0005yo-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:33:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOFe-0005yl-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOFg-00064f-AJ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:33:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOFV-00063I-1R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05443 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOFS-0005ye-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:46 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOFG-0005yZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:32:35 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5SMWNoJ017469 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:32:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306282232.h5SMWNoJ017469@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <3EFE126E.4030505@tumbleweed.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:32:23 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" > ... > > Which major MTAs don't have current versions that support SMTP-TLS > > and SMTL-AUTH? > > Signing at the first MTA seems a bit stronger but you are right that > TLS can also be used. If you prefer end-to-end authentication, there are S/MIME and PGP. > But it seems the problem remains that: > - there needs to be a critical mass of actual deployments (without it > one cannot refuse non TLS inbound or whatever other scheme is chosen) yep. > - there needs to be an acceptance of certificates more costly than > self-signed which a spammer can keep on generating like for domains. They must be expensive enough that the CA can verify that a new applicant is not the entity that is again and currently (well, as of this week) calling itself "zhangguojie" but not so expensive that the CA will keep the money regardless of spam sign. I think the first numbers is more than $1000 and the second is less than $500, which would make the excercise academic even if real people were willing to pay as much as $10. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ] From: Bob Wyman ] Sure, we could make it more expensive for everyone to send ] mail in order to squeeze out the spammers. But, we'll squeeze ] out a large number of other people at the same time. Using ] such a blunt method should only be considered if there are no ] alternatives. In this case, simply raising costs won't ] accomplish much. That could be worded better. You cannot force people to choose between a new, spam-resistant system and not using email. Given a new, spam-resistant system, all of us, including spammers will have to choose among several alternatives including: 1. paying the higher price in money or whatever. 2. not paying and not using email. 3. not paying and continuing to use the old email system. 4. not paying and using some other new email system, perhaps such as SMS. Note that many spammers would be overjoyed to choose #1 in a system without the viagra porn homeworks. Many would be glad to pay more per delivered spam than most retail end-users would pay for private email. Junk postal mail is amazingly expensive when you include all of the costs and not just what the Postal Service collects. ] ... ] Any anti-spam method that relies on the fact that ] spammers might not follow some technical guidelines is doomed ] to failure. You must assume that spammers will follow all of ] the technical rules -- they just don't follow the moral or ] legal rules. Any other set of assumptions will result in ] systems that are trivial to get around - simply by following ] the rules. That could also be phrased better. Spammers will follow those technical guidelines that are in their interests, as demonstrated by their non-conformant notions of SMTP command pipelining. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 18:49:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05673 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SMnAo26551 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOVK-0006uA-Hg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05666; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOVH-00063E-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOVB-00063B-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOVB-0006pj-Fd; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOUL-0006nf-59 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:48:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05659 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOUI-000633-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:48:06 -0400 Received: from mms.tumbleweed.com ([216.148.232.2] helo=mms-rc.tumbleweed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOU7-00062r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:47:55 -0400 Received: from 10.1.5.15 by mms-rc.tumbleweed.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:47:08 -0700 Received: from tumbleweed.com (circle.tumbleweed.com [10.1.60.104]) by pigeon.tumbleweed with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N4LG7JHX; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:47:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFE1AEB.5020406@tumbleweed.com> From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" Organization: Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (http://www.tumbleweed.com ) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bob@wyman.us cc: "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <200306282210.AJQ57736@ms3.verisignmail.com> X-WSS-ID: 12E0C566551362-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:47:07 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, > I think you are mixing issues here. (i.e. technical and > economic) Yes. I was agreeing with you technical suggestion of signing. But thinking about its application to solve the real world problem it seemed relevant to talk about economics. > The point is to allow a receiver to verify that the > claimed sending server is, in fact, the one that sent the > message. The method will verify spammer's machines just as > well as non-spammers. Yes i understood that part. > Sure, we could make it more expensive for everyone to send > mail in order to squeeze out the spammers. But, we'll squeeze > out a large number of other people at the same time. Using > such a blunt method should only be considered if there are no > alternatives. Yes. If there is a low cost solution to make it harder to create new 'verified sender domains' that's preferable: i just did not have a good low-cost suggestion. > Right. So, don't refuse them. Simply mark them > as "suspect." Then, let the mail clients deal with presenting > them, filing them in "gray inboxes" etc. Yes that's equivalent to what i meant by "ability to increase probability of an email being spam if sender is not verified." which you seemed to disagree with later on. > Wrong. You don't have to make domain creation expensive > in order to have confidence in white/black domain lists as > long as you can verify the source of a message. My proposal > allows you to have confidence in the utility of your lists > even though it adds zero cost to domain creation. You lost me here. Here is what i meant and may be my thinking is flawed but let me try again: the spammer can create every day at sunrise a _new_ domain and its associated free signing cert, then spend the day happily spamming. At the receiving end, i see a new sender domain which is 'signed or verified' but i dont know yet it is a spammer because that domain appeared today so it is not in my black list yet. By the time i put it in my black list the spammer has already moved on and start using a fresh verified sender domain. This is exactly what spammers are doing today with domains in spamvertised URLs: they use one or more new domains daily. Making it more difficult to create new verified domains (using economics or not) would make black listing much more valuable in a world with verified senders. > Any anti-spam method that relies on the fact that > spammers might not follow some technical guidelines is doomed > to failure. You must assume that spammers will follow all of > the technical rules -- they just don't follow the moral or > legal rules. Any other set of assumptions will result in > systems that are trivial to get around - simply by following > the rules. Agree: the increased probability i was mentioning is similar to what you were suggesting above ("Gray inbox"). But you are right: one still needs defenses for the verified senders: your proposal makes blacklist an effective defense against verified senders, with the caveat i mentioned above. Thanks jean _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 18:51:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05719 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SMp8q27219 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:51:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOXE-00074w-RF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:51:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05714; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOXB-00063u-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:51:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOX5-00063r-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:50:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOX7-0006zf-W4; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:51:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOWV-0006z9-Ah for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:50:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05698 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOWS-00063W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:50:20 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOWG-00063O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:50:09 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5SMnmTq018630 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:49:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306282249.h5SMnmTq018630@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <200306282231.AJQ59985@ms3.verisignmail.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:49:48 -0600 (MDT) > From: Bob Wyman > ... > > why is it any harder for a spammer to get a signed, > > throw-away domain name than to get a throw-away personal > > or other certificate? > Why should it be hard? As far as I can see, there are only > two useful reasons to verifying the identity of a sending > server: First, so that you can build white/black lists and > Second, so that you can detect false statements in mail > headers. Of the two, the first is clearly the most important. > Both of these two benefits arise from verification whether it > is cheap or expensive. That's a subversive notion, or at least contrary to the standard rational for authentication as a spam solution that is based on the idea that signatures are almost free and that spammers can't get signatures or will be disavowed by their CAs or blacklists. I also doubt it's necessary. Most of the senders that you might whitelist already use practically unforgeable tokens, namely the IP addresses of their SMTP clients. The remaining senders that you might add to your whitelist are likely to have other sufficient marks, sometimes including digital signatures. On the other side, many of the senders you might blacklist are already easily blacklisted by their IP address or sending domain. What's the point of looking for lies in headers? Most of the spammer header lies were in Received headers, but seem to be out of style. Spammers tha send from their own systems have no reason to fake Received headers, and neither do those using open proxies. The other header statements that most people mean when they say such things involve the envelope or From sender, but I don't see how you could usefully detect real lies there. If signatures became necessary, then spammers' $8 domain name registrar would provide them. As you said, signatures verify spammers's STMP clients just as well as everyone else's. A combination of IP address blacklists (including DNS BLs) and local whitelists can be awfully effective, and requires no changes in the mail system or other people's behavior. That doesn't imply that looking for improvements is not good, but any proposal that does not do better than ~80% is a waste of breath. The ASRG standard dichotomy between the silver bullet of the moment and 50 spam/day/user is false. No one need receive more than a very few spam/week if they'll use the current mechanisms. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 19:01:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05988 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SN19328705 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOgv-0007St-I7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05975; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOgs-000682-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOgm-00067z-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOgn-0007MK-7g; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOgh-0007Ld-T4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:00:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05962 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOge-00067s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:00:52 -0400 Received: from mms.tumbleweed.com ([216.148.232.2] helo=mms-rc.tumbleweed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOgT-00067e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:00:42 -0400 Received: from 10.1.5.15 by mms-rc.tumbleweed.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:59:42 -0700 Received: from tumbleweed.com (circle.tumbleweed.com [10.1.60.104]) by pigeon.tumbleweed with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N4LG7JJJ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:59:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFE1DDD.1040300@tumbleweed.com> From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" Organization: Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (http://www.tumbleweed.com ) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vernon Schryver" cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <3EFE126E.4030505@tumbleweed.com> <200306282232.h5SMWNoJ017469@calcite.rhyolite.com> X-WSS-ID: 12E0C254551532-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:59:41 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Vernon >>Signing at the first MTA seems a bit stronger but you are right that >>TLS can also be used. > > If you prefer end-to-end authentication, there are S/MIME and PGP. That's why i mentioned s/mime in my original post. Yes, good point on PGP. jean _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 19:05:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06130 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SN58W29351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOkm-0007dK-O5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06101; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOkj-00069q-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOkd-00069n-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOkf-0007Y8-H4; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOkN-0007Xr-Lg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06088 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOkK-00069e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:40 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=mr10.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOk9-00069b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:29 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by mr10.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id ACB84052; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (localhost.verisignmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJQ63464; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306282304.AJQ63464@ms3.verisignmail.com> Received: from 66.65.26.16 by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with HTTP/1.1; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:26 -0400 From: Bob Wyman Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability To: Jean-Christophe Bandini Cc: bob@wyman.us, "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Reply-To: bob@wyman.us X-Mailer: Webmail Mirapoint Direct 3.2.2-GA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:04:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jean=Christophe Bandini wrote: > Making it more difficult to create new verified domains > (using economics or not) would make black listing much more > valuable in a world with verified senders. Yes, this is true. However, any method that makes it more expensive for spammers to create "verified domains" also makes it more expensive for non-spammers to do so. Given that there are massively more non-spammers than spammers, I suggest that the increased cost for the many will be too great a cost for the benefits received. The method of verifying statements about a source server should be considered of most use in establishing white lists - - not black lists. This method will be of limited use in building black lists since the number of sites which should be blacklisted changes more rapidly than anyone can keep up with it. This has been and will always be a problem with any blacklisting solution. Blacklists are only useful when you have domains that are persistent. This is not news... bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 19:21:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06366 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SNL9E31794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WP0H-0008Gj-Mp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06358; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WP0G-0006DB-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WP0A-0006D8-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WP08-0008EI-VO; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WOzZ-0008E4-Fp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:20:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06353 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOzI-0006D3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:20:08 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WOz3-0006Co-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:19:53 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5SNIUgg001680 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306282318.h5SNIUgg001680@nic-naa.net> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Subject: [Asrg] fwd (nanog) Over three million computers 0wned? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:18:30 -0400 ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: owner-nanog@merit.edu Delivery-Date: Sat Jun 28 19:12:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5SNCDgg001662 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 4B3BF91244; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1745D91245; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA62791244 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D88505DF22; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu Received: from clifden.donelan.com (clifden.donelan.com [199.34.53.180]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCC35DF1C for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sean (helo=localhost) by clifden.donelan.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.34 #3) id 19WOog-0003HC-00 for nanog@merit.edu; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:09:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Sean Donelan To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Over three million computers 0wned? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu X-Loop: nanog http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141901 Trustcorps claims it has scientific and anecdotal resaerch supporting its conclusion that over three million computers are "owned" by malicious groups. On the other hand, Information Risk Management questioned how any one person could "own" hundreds of computers at any one time. And systems are often not "owned" by a single group, but exploited by multiple groups Like most statistics, the "truth" is probably a little harder to find, and a little bit scarier. The FBI estimates a car is stolen every 27 seconds somewhere in the US. In 2000, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics showed that 1,165,559 cars were stolen; with an estimated value of $7.8 Billion. Police apprehend less than 15% of all auto thieves. Unfortunately this computer crime doesn't fit the FBI crime reporting statistics well. Vandalism of Property? Is the cracking of computers happening more or less often than car theft? ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 19:36:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06522 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5SNaDU01442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WPEq-0000NB-U9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06518; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WPEp-0006Fi-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WPEj-0006Ff-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WPEe-0000LI-FJ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:36:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WPEV-0000L7-Jf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06515 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WPET-0006Fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:50 -0400 Received: from mms.tumbleweed.com ([216.148.232.2] helo=mms-rc.tumbleweed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WPEJ-0006F7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:39 -0400 Received: from 10.1.5.15 by mms-rc.tumbleweed.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:34:50 -0700 Received: from tumbleweed.com (circle.tumbleweed.com [10.1.60.104]) by pigeon.tumbleweed with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N4LG7JLG; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:34:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3EFE261A.8000805@tumbleweed.com> From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" Organization: Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (http://www.tumbleweed.com ) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bob@wyman.us cc: "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <200306282304.AJQ63464@ms3.verisignmail.com> X-WSS-ID: 12E0F990551852-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:34:50 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob > This method will be of limited use in > building black lists since the number of sites which should > be blacklisted changes more rapidly than anyone can keep up > with it. Yes that was my comment in the scenario where it is easy to create new verified domains. So sounds like we were saying or meanning the same thing after all. > This has been and will always be a problem with any > blacklisting solution. Blacklists are only useful when you > have domains that are persistent. Yes. But in such a scenario (implemented by cost or other means) then whitelist become _more_ expensive to maintain than blacklist because as you said above there are 'massively more non-spammer than spammer', at least for servers with significant volume/number of users. Plus the fact that blacklists are not very useful today does not eliminate their relevance to discuss them in scenarios that can make them more effective. Thanks jean _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 21:01:49 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07516 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T11Kt13558 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WQZE-0003Wb-JZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07499; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WQZC-0006UM-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WQZ6-0006UI-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WQYv-0003SU-7Q; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WQYs-0003Rz-Oq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:00:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07477 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WQYb-0006Ty-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:00:41 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WQYQ-0006Tu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:00:30 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2493519 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:00:07 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Second Response Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:57:54 -0400 I've replied to this off-list (what can I say, I'm a sucker). However my recommendation (if anyone cares) is that further on-list replies to this proposal are a waste of bandwidth. We have quite enough pointless battles as it is. Battling over whether it's feasible to implement a fascist NGO with complete control over your company's ability to send email is probably not something we need to do. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 22:09:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08285 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T29Ej23956 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WRcw-0006EJ-1x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08266; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WRcs-0006fv-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WRcn-0006fs-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WRcj-00069K-7m; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WRc0-00068z-1c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:08:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08243 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WRbi-0006fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:07:58 -0400 Received: from 000-238-264.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.170.13] helo=68.27.170.13) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WRbV-0006fd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:07:46 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030628220706.00b38760@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:07:07 -0400 Just as some feared, Yahoo's spam filters blocked confirmation emails from the FTC's Do Not Call registry according to a Wired New Article (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59427,00.html). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yakov Shafranovich / SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jun 28 22:40:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08594 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T2eBZ28947 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WS6s-0007Wo-Vr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08590; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WS6p-0006ks-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WS6j-0006kp-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WS6j-0007Uk-6U; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WS61-0007U5-1Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:39:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08587 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WS5x-0006km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:39:13 -0400 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WS5n-0006kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:39:03 -0400 Received: from [66.92.72.194] (account nazgul HELO [192.168.1.104]) by somewhere.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.7) with ESMTP-TLS id 2493656; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:38:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030628220706.00b38760@solidmatrix.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030628220706.00b38760@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Cc: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:38:38 -0400 At 10:07 PM -0400 6/28/03, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Just as some feared, Yahoo's spam filters blocked confirmation emails from the This isn't terribly surprising. Even if you ignore the bulk aspects, the message headers have at least three characteristics which are normally associated with spam, including one which is a direct violation of the RFC specifications for email. If they wanted to keep the stuff from being blocked, they should have thought of talking to the spam filter companies a bit earlier than the day before. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 00:31:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09809 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T4VGR11757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WTqO-00033Y-8y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09800; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WTqL-000763-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WTqG-000760-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WTq9-0002yn-5F; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WTps-0002yK-Q1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:30:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09774 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WTpb-00075X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:30:27 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WTpQ-00075N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:30:16 -0400 Received: (qmail 1119 invoked by uid 100); 29 Jun 2003 04:29:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20030629042936.1118.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030628220706.00b38760@solidmatrix.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 29 Jun 2003 04:29:36 -0000 >Just as some feared, Yahoo's spam filters blocked confirmation emails from >the FTC's Do Not Call registry according to a Wired News Article ... which is based on uninformed and incorrect speculation. I asked a manager I know at Yahoo. He checked the IP range that the donotcall mail is coming from, and verified that no, they're not blocking it. Some might have been filtered into the "bulk" folders, but it wasn't blocked. What really happened is that the servers were grossly overloaded and have been taking up to 11 hours to send out confirmation mail, and users misinterpreted the delay as blockage. Please avoid spreading incorrect rumors. That does nobody any good. Regards, John Levine, postmaster@iecc.com, postmaster@gurus.com, postmaster@services.net (and postmaster of about 100 other domains) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 00:56:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10079 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T4uAK15280 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUEU-0003yN-8f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10072; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUER-0007AF-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUEL-0007AC-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUEL-0003wP-C6; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUEA-0003wC-Tb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:55:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10069 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUDt-0007A9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:55:33 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUDg-0007A4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:55:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629005436.00bc7e48@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine), asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:54:37 -0400 At 04:29 AM 6/29/2003 +0000, John R. Levine wrote: > >Just as some feared, Yahoo's spam filters blocked confirmation emails from > >the FTC's Do Not Call registry according to a Wired News Article > > ... which is based on uninformed and incorrect speculation. > >I asked a manager I know at Yahoo. He checked the IP range that the >donotcall mail is coming from, and verified that no, they're not >blocking it. Some might have been filtered into the "bulk" folders, >but it wasn't blocked. It was filtered not blocked, but as far as I know all spam at Yahoo goes to bulk mail folders. From the article: "representatives note that the company does not completely block e-mail, but sends them to a bulk mail folder for users to review. " >What really happened is that the servers were grossly overloaded and >have been taking up to 11 hours to send out confirmation mail, and >users misinterpreted the delay as blockage. > >Please avoid spreading incorrect rumors. That does nobody any good. Here is the relevant quote from the Wired News article (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59427,00.html): ---snip--- The glitch was discovered by Washington security firm NetFrameworks during routine evaluations of spam filters that the company performs for its clients. Our tests showed that Yahoo's spam filter was automatically sending the confirmation messages from the do-not-call list into users' bulk-mail folders," said NetFrameworks co-founder and CTO Eric Greenberg. "The irony of it is that the spam filter is blocking the very thing that's supposed to help you stop getting spam over the phone." ---snip--- The origin of this is from NetFramework's press release (http://www.netframeworks.com/press.php?newsID=32): ---snip---- NetFrameworks, Inc. today announced that its researchers have discovered that leading spam blocking systems, including a top processor of email worldwide, Yahoo!, are blocking email confirmations from the Federal Do Not Call Registry launched this morning by the Federal Trade Commission. ----snip--- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 01:00:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10147 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T509I16612 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:00:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUIK-0004Jr-4F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:00:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10138; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUIH-0007Aw-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:00:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUIB-0007At-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:59:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUID-0004EV-7X; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUHo-0004Du-CF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:59:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10115 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUHl-0007Ap-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:59:33 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUHZ-0007Am-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:59:22 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629005726.00bbeb08@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:58:34 -0400 At 11:27 AM 6/27/2003 -0700, Howard Roth wrote: >[..] >Efforts to validate the sender of an email message will help reduce the >dissemination of unwanted email. We propose a specific methodology to >address this issue by using a simple method based on a process that >responds to a new message with specially coded request for validation >message. This specially coded message is sent to the reply >toaddress. The message initiating mail server receives this reply and >responds with an acknowledgement to the recipient mailer server if the >initial message was indeed sent from this server. Otherwise it does not >respond. If a positive response comes back the initial message is >transferred from a pending directory to the recipients directory. If >there is no response in a parameter based time period the initial message >is discarded by the recipient mail server. >[..] This has been mentioned on the list before - this is a specific case of C/R. The CRI protocol that is being worked on by Eric Dean and me includes the ability to verify whether the sender has in fact sent a specific message. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 01:13:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10301 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T5DAk18636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUUw-0004qT-7Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10291; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUUt-0007EE-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUUn-0007EB-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUUm-0004ni-Un; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUUU-0004n7-Tc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:12:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10287 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUUS-0007Dz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:12:40 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUUG-0007Dw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:12:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629010744.00ba8600@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Barry Shein , "Peter Kay" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Cc: In-Reply-To: <16124.52439.895213.913633@world.std.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:12:06 -0400 At 07:01 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >How is any of this consent/filtering related to the usual IETF purpose >such as protocol documents (RFCs, etc), network engineering, and not >just some ad hoc User Interface Engineering? > >It seems to me the consent proposals (getting any attention) thus far >require no change to any existing protocols or standards, and don't >seem to imply any new protocols or standards. > >Where in the stack would any of this fit and why does this group need >to be involved? As I mentioned before there are two models here - network abuse model which you are proposing and consent model which is defined in the charter. The network abuse model as you propose would seek to find ways to detect and stop spammers from using the Internet for abusive behavior (i.e. spam) It may also include viruses, worms, etc. as a side benefit. Both models in my opinion are equally good. However, they call for different solutions and approaches. Both models will involve changing existing protocols (i.e. SMTP) and defining new ones (like CRI). That is where IETF gets involved. The consent model specifically is not limited to the MUAs, but can be enforced by MTAs on ISP level as well. In order to do so a framework and various protocols must be worked out. I will be posting a document sometime later on this week laying out both models in detail. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 01:16:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10372 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T5G8Z19529 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUXo-00054u-OP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10368; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUXl-0007F0-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUXg-0007Ex-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUXh-0004zm-Nn; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:16:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUXP-0004yv-Gc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:15:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10361 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUXM-0007Ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:15:40 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUXA-0007Em-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:15:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629011233.00b33578@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Walter Dnes , ASRG list From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email In-Reply-To: <20030627222558.A2360@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:14:54 -0400 At 10:25 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: >On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:30:54AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > > What about interoperability? How will different email providers > > decided who is responsible for paying what? Also, who will enforce > > such structure? Postal services of many countries use a UN affiliated > > organization called the International Postal Union which settles > > these matters. Is it good to put control into one body? > > It doesn't have to be one body; it can be several companies. Say a >consortium which receives 50 cents per email, and the originating >company gets 25 cents per email. (This will discourage spammers from >playing shell games with fake ISPs). The average person can obtain >read-only accounts, with an option to send one-off emails for a dollar >each. It will complement regular email, not replace it. Something >along the lines of UPS/Fedex/Purolater. Too expensive for everyday >correspondence but just right for files that absolutely *HAVE* to get >there. It just the thought of putting something like email into centralized control that unnerves me. Just look at what happened to ICANN. Another issue is that this proposal would require completely new infrastructure. > > What about the issue of spam in Personal email? > > The main reason for my proposal was to provide a reliable alternative >without businesses having to lobby for "must-carry" legislation. One >size does *NOT* fit all. The business concept of >guranteed-delivery-come-hell-or-high-water would destroy personal email >if spammers got guaranteed delivery. The "personal" level of blocking >is anathema to business practices. Once we ensure that "personal email" >is *NOT* required to be business-level robust, then... > a) filtering/blocklisting is less likely to be outlawed for "personal > email" because businesses will have a business alternative > b) individuals will be more likely to use filters/blocklists if > businesses they want to deal with do have a reliable alternative. > > I haven't specified the exact mechanism for separation between >"personal email" and "business email". It'll probably be separate >domains and/or IP addresses. Well if personal accounts can have read-only access, then you can just route business email to their personal boxes which would remain the same. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 01:20:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10406 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T5K9w20868 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUbg-0005QV-V9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10400; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUbd-0007Fa-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUbY-0007FX-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUbZ-0005L8-HI; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:20:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUao-0005Ix-Q1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:19:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10397 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUal-0007FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:19:11 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUaa-0007FO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:19:01 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629011544.00bbe168@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:18:32 -0400 At 12:42 AM 6/28/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > >> There was some more fundamental (but probably premature) > >discussion of "consent" early in the life this group. > > > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's HTML >blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. > >I think that my approach, with sender/recipient-pair-based permissions >list and >a (perhaps multi-stage) transition strategy as I suggested would clearly >make a >big reduction in spam volume (bytes at least), and the system is simple >enough >that users could understand and deal with it. > >I think it's a big bonus that it (the SAME mechanism) also would take a big >chunk out of viruses/worms/trojans (and I spent the last half of today >disinfecting three systems at one of my consulting clients... all three >systems >had multiple infections of Bugbear and Klez... several variants of each). > >I also like the fact that my approach doesn't require a global consensus >or even >a "standard" for how to implement it. It can be implemented on an ISP-by-ISP >basis incrementally. There have been many approaches discussed in the group. My problem is that all of these approaches can be fit into a general framework of either network abuse model or consent model, and would make it easier to deal with all of them since many common features would stand out and can be compared easier. I would like to define these frameworks as per charter, and then see how different anti-spam approaches including yours will fit in and compare them. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 01:24:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10458 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T5O9W21677 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUfZ-0005dY-1I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10445; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUfW-0007GZ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUfQ-0007GW-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUfQ-0005Xq-Ob; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:24:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUeY-0005X9-7P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:23:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10436 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUeV-0007G1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:23:03 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUeI-0007Fy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:22:51 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629011937.00bb3e88@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:22:06 -0400 At 01:38 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: >[..] > Let's face it, SMTP (as it was in the 1980's) is irrevocably dead. >Spam has killed it, and we need to accept that fact. Whether the new >non-spammy protocol is SMTP++, or something else, is irrelevant. We >need to do *something* more than believe that SMTP was created by God, >and that anyone changing it will be cursed forever. SMTP is not the only problem here - its the very nature of the Internet itself - the whole TCP/IP suite. Many of Internet protocols have been built as open systems inherently trusting all users of the network to behave themselves. I think that the problem goes much deeper than simply SMTP - it affects all of Internet protocols. SMTP and spam is a specific example, just like DDOS, viruses, worms, and other stuff. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 01:39:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10624 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T5dMl24636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUuI-0006PH-Js for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10605; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUuF-0007J2-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUu9-0007Iz-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUtw-0006KD-PN; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:39:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WUtc-0006K2-Qi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:38:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA10591 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUtM-0007If-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:38:24 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WUtA-0007Ib-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:38:13 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629012311.00bd5e38@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:37:38 -0400 It seems to me that the members of the group are looking at the spam problem from two different angles: 1. Network Abuse - some people including Barry Shain and Eric Brunner specifically, have been proposing that we look at the entire spam problem as one of network abuse. The Internet in general, and SMTP in particular, have been built as open systems trusting all network users to behave themselves. Spam is caused by those users abusing the network and its resources. 2. Consent - others in particular, the people or person who wrote the group charter, propose that spam be viewed as an issue of consent. Spam is caused by the fact that the receivers have no mechanisms in place to be able to express their consent to receiving email. Thus, all of the proposals fall into three general categories: 1. Network Abuse - these proposals are the ones that look at the underlying nature of email and trying to fix or correct the abuse problem. This includes RMX, rDNS, certificates in DNS, distributed spam detection systems such as DCC, systems for detecting open relays and proxies, creating a separate email system, moving from SMTP to a different protocol, charging for sending email, etc. 2. Consent - these proposals do not try to block the email at the sender's end, or as at being transferred over the network. Instead, they concentrate solely at the receiver's point. These proposals define various mechanisms and structures through which the receiver (or his ISP), can his or her consent about wanting to receive email. These include trusted sender systems (like Habeas), filtering systems based on message content (like SpamAssasin, HTML blocking), C/R systems, systems based on passwords (Selby's proposal for lock-and-key), manual whitelists, etc. 3. Combination - these includes combination systems like filtering on receiver's end based on a blacklist of open proxies, etc. The problem is that many of these approaches if implemented independently of each other, would not be able to operate together as a cohesive system, and in some cases interfere with each other. I would like to see these two models of spam and three approaches to anti-spam defined clearly so we can work out a cohesive model of how to fight spam. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 02:13:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22516 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T6DF607079 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WVR4-0001q6-St for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22459; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WVR1-0007QU-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WVQv-0007QR-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WVQr-0001mX-JX; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WVQH-0001jF-PW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:12:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22346 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WVQE-0007Pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:12:22 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WVQ2-0007Pp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:12:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629021151.00bbe168@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:11:52 -0400 It seems to me that the members of the group are looking at the spam problem from two different angles: 1. Network Abuse - some people including Barry Shain and Eric Brunner specifically, have been proposing that we look at the entire spam problem as one of network abuse. The Internet in general, and SMTP in particular, have been built as open systems trusting all network users to behave themselves. Spam is caused by those users abusing the network and its resources. 2. Consent - others in particular, the people or person who wrote the group charter, propose that spam be viewed as an issue of consent. Spam is caused by the fact that the receivers have no mechanisms in place to be able to express their consent to receiving email. Thus, all of the proposals fall into three general categories: 1. Network Abuse - these proposals are the ones that look at the underlying nature of email and trying to fix or correct the abuse problem. This includes RMX, rDNS, certificates in DNS, distributed spam detection systems such as DCC, systems for detecting open relays and proxies, creating a separate email system, moving from SMTP to a different protocol, charging for sending email, etc. 2. Consent - these proposals do not try to block the email at the sender's end, or as at being transferred over the network. Instead, they concentrate solely at the receiver's point. These proposals define various mechanisms and structures through which the receiver (or his ISP), can his or her consent about wanting to receive email. These include trusted sender systems (like Habeas), filtering systems based on message content (like SpamAssasin, HTML blocking), C/R systems, systems based on passwords (Selby's proposal for lock-and-key), manual whitelists, etc. 3. Combination - these includes combination systems like filtering on receiver's end based on a blacklist of open proxies, etc. The problem is that many of these approaches if implemented independently of each other, would not be able to operate together as a cohesive system, and in some cases interfere with each other. I would like to see these two models of spam and three approaches to anti-spam defined clearly so we can work out a cohesive model of how to fight spam. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 03:28:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23997 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5T7SFq20506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WWbf-0005Kf-Ka for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23987; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WWbd-0007hQ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WWbX-0007hN-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WWbR-0005GE-ID; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:28:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WWaf-0005Fh-RN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:27:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23981 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WWad-0007hB-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:27:11 -0400 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.123]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WWaN-0007h6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:26:55 -0400 Received: from user-119apqc.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.103.76] helo=selfb5zlf10bdt) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19WWZt-0002vG-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:26:25 -0700 From: "Eric Greenberg" To: , , Subject: RE: Re: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Message-ID: <000001c33e0f$a1050c40$c8a8a8c0@selfb5zlf10bdt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000501c33e08$4eb28a50$c8a8a8c0@selfb5zlf10bdt> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:25:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yakov's response is completely correct. Essentially all spam at Yahoo = (using Spam Guard) is blocked and placed into a bulk mail folder. Therefore, = there is no distinction between saying that a mail message was "placed in the = bulk mail folder" or "blocked by spam filters" when referring to the Yahoo = spam service. The FTC confirmations were, without question, placed into a bulk mail = folder in the morning the FTC site was brought online. Anyone wishing a screen = shot can email me directly and I will provide it to them. Missed FTC mail confirmation messages were not caused by Yahoo mail servers being = overloaded at the time we ran our test (thereby hypothetically causing a delay in = mail delivery.) Instead, we observed that the FTC confirmation messages = reached the Yahoo bulk spam mail folder within 3 minutes after sign-up on the = FTC do-not-call website. For those subscribing to the Yahoo Spam Guard service, the majority of typical end-users would never inspect their bulk mail (spam) folder = looking for a message in my opinion. They may not even know that a bulk mail = folder exists. Yes it is a fall back for legitimate email flagged as spam. = However, in my opinion, only highly experienced Internet would know to inspect = this bulk spam folder on Yahoo or any other similar online mail service for legitimate email flagged as spam. As for the rule set used by Yahoo Spam Guard to place the message into = the bulk mail folder and thus effectively block it from the common users = view, it wasn't simply a source IP address based on our tests. While it is possible that an unexpected surge in traffic from the original FTC IP address range that caused an initial filter to be put in place (one = theory put forward by Yahoo's responses in the press), at the particular moment = in time we ran our tests, it appeared to be a content filter. This is = because we attempted to forward the same content between Yahoo email addresses (using a simple forward from their bulk mail address) and discovered = that the forwarded message was also blocked. This indicated that, whatever = the initial basis for a filter, at this point Yahoo's systems had responded = by blocking mail with that particular content signature and not, for = example, based on source IP address. The press coverage of this event precipitated action on the part of spam system operators including Yahoo to assure that they were not blocking = these confirmations. Our simple calculations indicate that the effect of users re-registering as a result of them not receiving these confirmations = (and thus assuming they needed to repeat the process since the FTC site = implied they'd receive a confirmation message shortly) could produce a = substantial unnecessary performance burden on the FTC servers and related network. = In my opinion it also heightened user and government awareness as to the importance of privacy technology. People on this list understand that = this technology demands further investment, advancement, and adoption, but = the general public, while understanding the problem, may not understand how difficult it is, and arbitrary it becomes. In my opinion, the deeper = their understanding, the more focus they are willing to provide-- such is the = case with all of security, it begins as education. Regards, Eric Greenberg Chief Technical Officer NetFrameworks, Inc. http://www.NetFrameworks.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 06:18:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25814 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TAIFW23714 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WZGB-0006AP-H4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25810; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WZG7-0000RI-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WZG2-0000RF-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WZFx-00067f-Dr; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WZFE-00067G-47 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:17:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25804 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WZEv-0000R9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:16:57 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WZEk-0000R6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:16:46 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19WZEQ-0002KQ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:16:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating To: "Alan DeKok" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:16:26 +0100 > > If no-one is using (receiving) email, why will the spammers > > send it? > > > At that extreme, they won't. Then people will start using email > again, because there's no spam. Then the spammers will attack again. > Repeat until you regurgitate. This isn't difficult to figure out... > Ahh... hyperbole. But that's only one possible extrapolation of the dynamics of the problem. > > Spammers will increase the volume of their traffic until they are > just barely more than breaking even. That's guaranteed. I'll bet > money that the number of people using email then will be lower than it > is today, and that those people will have massively increased costs > for their SMTP infrastructure. It's a problem in co-evolution really isn't it? Like a host/parasite thing. A parasite that kills its host is a poor parasite. A host that expends resources it can't afford in fighting the parasite will probably die of something else. >I still believe it's substantially true, > though. The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once > spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in > that, too. I'm not certain of this. > > Then what? We'll probably have SMTP for people willing to put up > with the deluge of spam, and eventually a new, non-spammy protocol for > people who have gotten frustrated with the "fingers in the ears" > attitude towards changing SMTP. But for a long period, there will be > duplicate email systems, and massive political fights. > Maybe. I don't know, it may be that the problem is self-limiting. As spam gets worse, imperfect "solutions" are deployed which keep the amount of spam *seen* just about at a minor nuisance level. In which case, the pressure to produce a radical solution is never strong enough to justify the cost, no matter how elegant and technically attractive it is. This is just another possible extrapolation of spam dynamics. I'm not sure it's true either. Equally, external factors (some change in legislation perhaps, sudden popular shift to some form of Instant Messaging) may change the way things develop. > Let's face it, SMTP (as it was in the 1980's) is irrevocably dead. > Spam has killed it, and we need to accept that fact. Whether the new > non-spammy protocol is SMTP++, or something else, is irrelevant. We > need to do *something* more than believe that SMTP was created by God, > and that anyone changing it will be cursed forever. > It's clear that spammers depend on features of SMTP and the nature of the network. Many anti-spam proposals are effectively new protocols (with more handshaking, authentication etc) *layered* on SMTP. Some mechanisms (e.g. use of "blackhole" lists) effectively modify the connectedness of the network. The advantage of doing things in these ways, rather than replacing SMTP or creating private networks is that you can more easily be backward compatible, don't rely on universal deployment and can deliver (in many cases) now (or soon). Of course, they're not likely to be perfect. They may not address all the aspects of the problem, just the ones that the people who pay care enough about. That said, if and when the SMTP++BONE (or whatever) is created I'll be happy to try to convince my boss that we should hook up to it. Let's hope it's not too expensive. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 09:02:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27637 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TD2Eh18065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wbos-0004hI-O9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27629; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wbor-0000nA-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wbol-0000n7-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wbof-0004fF-8n; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wbng-0004e1-5h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:01:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27605 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WbnP-0000mo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:00:43 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WbnF-0000mS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:00:33 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5TCxKB03647 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:59:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVY3AA9; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:59:20 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (abrwt1tc.ca.nortel.com [47.9.22.9]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLVG6FD8; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:59:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFEE370.6060106@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away References: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151955.00bb9668@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:02:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> On our spamtrap, we see machines making _thousands_ of transactions >> that consist of only: >> HELO somevalue >> QUIT > Have you considering the possibility that they are checking for RMX/rDNS > compliance? Repeating exactly the same test 20,000+ times in a day? I don't think so. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 09:56:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28298 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TDuFE27297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wcf9-00076C-OM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28293; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wcf7-0000xG-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wcf2-0000xD-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wceu-00071s-Pf; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wcen-00071P-Cy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:55:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28284 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:55:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WceW-0000wy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:55:36 -0400 Received: from bay8-f36.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.36] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WceL-0000wl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:55:25 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:54:03 -0700 Received: from 62.253.12.120 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:54:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.12.120] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Third Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2003 13:54:03.0633 (UTC) FILETIME=[E670E610:01C33E45] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:54:03 +0000 Thankyou once again for your comments. Please find my responses in the body of the message. This post relates to the 'GIEIS' Anti-Spam system which can be located at: Http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Mark McCarron. >At 9:46 PM +0000 6/28/03, Mark McCarron wrote: >>This list has had this type of discussion before. >>Those are approximately the requirements=20 >>necessary for an SSL certificate.  SSL=20 >>certificates currently last one year at about=20 >>$100/cert.  The margins are such that virtually=20 > > > >>This system does not use SSL nor will it ever. It will use (most likely) >>a modified version of a PGP source as the basis of it's encryption method. >> Therefore, the prices you quoted are not accurate. > >I didn't say it would use SSL. I said that your background check >requirements are approximately equivalent to those required for getting an >SSL certificate. Therefore I would expect your costs to be (at a minimum) >the same. However since you have a great deal of verification requirements >*after* purchase that Certs don't have, your costs will be a great deal >more. > Mark's Response: SSL background checks are designed to make a profit. The 'GIEIS' system is not. Most information requests are automated between 'GIEIS' and ISP. The costs would be minimal and nowhere near what you are suggesting. >>Individuals who run mail servers for there own private use will not have >>access to 'GIEIS'. They should move to an email client and connect >>through an ISPs 'EAS'. Also, no credit card, no access. > >>If adopted by the major industry players of ISP and email, there would be >>nothing the rest of the world could do about it. Even through legal >>challanges. There is no law stating you cannot take all reasonable steps >>to protect your network. > >Both of these statements indicate that you are living in a very different >world that the rest of us. That's not how the world functions. You do not >have an accurate picture of how the email system is structured and how >companies do business. As a result you have created a system that does not >apply to reality. > Mark's response: I have created a system that spammers do not like, not only that but the same applies to a lot of software companies to. Spamming is a very profitable business. So profitable in fact, that they hire people to sit on Anti-Spam mailing lists and post nonsense all day long. Add to this, those who are avocating the use of certain 'Anti-Spam' software by certain companies and people's agenda's become clear. This system has been tested in the real world, it stopped 100,000 spam emails with 100% sucess. Also, just for your information, I have been the Director of E-business for several major websites over the last few years and I have installed enough networks in my time, so I know full well how companies do business. You don't seem to be absorbing the fact that I am changing the way email is structured. >>This document and system is not here to pass a 'popularity' test with >>Internet users. It is aimed at the large corporations with the cash-flow >>to support > >That cash flow comes because email is popular with users. Your system >would make email so difficult and expensive to use that the cash flow would >dry up. (Not that it's there to the extent that you seem to believe.) > Mark's Response: Nonsense. Please post your financial breakdown which supports this view. > >> the system. Not only will this system eliminate spam, but the majority >>of email based assaults on remote machines, chain-mail, and scam emails. >>The system will be between 99-100% effective and will run a zero-tolerance >>program. > >So would a world-wide dictatorship. But that doesn't mean we want one. > Mark's response: Not really an arguement now is it? >>What is a "bonafide" website, and how do you tell? >> >> >>Mark's response: >> >>By making the hosting company part liable under our 'Terms of Agreement' >>without which, they cannot send emails. Also, further checks are done >>with the ISP involved, who must provide a written reference sponsoring >>them to 'GIEIS'. > >Whoa! Now you're not only going to require registration of email servers, >but also of everyone who hosts a web server that corresponds to an email >domain! You need to do some serious research on how email and hosting >really works. > Mark's response: Again, I am changing the way email operates. If I didn't know how the system works in the first place, how could I suggest a replacement? Also, I don't see anyone posting here on how they could bypass the system. Looks pretty solid to me. >>fraudulent email of any form through forced measures. 'GIEIS' is designed >>to be the equivilent of a digital army. Of course the infrastructure >>exists, we > >And I thought I was joking about the dictatorship thing. > Mark's response: Under any democratic system you have the right to defend yourself. This is no different. >> can currently send that volume, there is no problem in analysing it too. >> If government agencies can perform heuristics of over 50 Million voice >>communications in 30 minutes >>then analysing email will be a walk-in-the-park. > >I know that some people fantasize about such things (and black >helicopters). But as you stated above, your experience is not on the >technical end. Transporting billions of email messages without content >analysis is something that the internet can currently do (on a good day). >Analyzing them all and coordinating authentication with a centralized >system is not. You'll just have to take my word on that as someone who's >been building mail systems for close to twenty years. > Mark's response: My experience is on the technical side. You see, when your a mathematician, technical subjects, especially digital communications is very easy. Add to this an extensive background in network engineering, electronic engineering, RF communications, Microwave Communications, Lazer DXing, software engineering, web development, protocol development and database engineering not to mention my business management skills. Then, I think you could say, I know what I'm talking about. You may be 'building' mail systems, however, I design that type of equiptment from board level up. Your not dealing with some end luser here. >>the world already have this capability. As for upgrading millions of >>users, there is already a push for the new IP standard to be >>implemented by the US Military. It would be no different than this, give >>it 6 > >By the military? IPv6 has been "pushed" for years now by lots of people >(hadn't heard about the military though). The fact that it has not been >implemented is in fact often used as an example of why proposals like yours >are bound to fail. > Mark's Response: Shows us how much you keep on top of this subject. The US military from 2004 will require IPv6 compatibility. Please refer to reuters for the press release on this. >>Social and political concerns are of no interest. It is technically >>feasible, > >Email is a social phenomenon, not a technical one. Anyone who thinks that >any solution can be deployed that does not take social and political >constraints into account needs to do a little work in the real world. Mark's response: Please list some 'political' constraints. I would like to see those. Also, as far as the end user is concerned the only difference they will notice will be a graphic being downloaded and a delay between emails. It would take longer to send a message via Hotmail's web based interface and since they have over 200 Million accounts, I think society in large has already proved that point for me. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 10:00:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28387 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TE0DH28823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wciz-0007Uo-6f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28381; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wcix-0000yc-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wcir-0000yX-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wcin-0007KW-6w; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wci5-0007HZ-Pu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:59:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28349 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wcho-0000yR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:59:00 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wche-0000xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:58:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19Wcgc-00025m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:57:46 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:16:26 BST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:57:46 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once > > spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in > > that, too. > > I'm not certain of this. It's happening already to people I know. A friends grandmother set up an email address to talk to her grandchildren. She gets 3-4 "real" email a week, and 5-10 porn spams a week. That was too problematic, so she gave up on email, and went back to the telephone. Vernon's recent message is at least partially correct. Some current anti-spam systems have made a difference for some people. What he's missing is that they haven't made enough of a difference for people like my friends grandmother. He's also shown his hand (IMHO), and explained for the first time why he's opposed to solutions which involve the IETF: his anti-spam system is a workable band-aid. But band-aids aren't considered good patient care. Cures are. > The advantage of doing things in these ways, rather than replacing > SMTP or creating private networks is that you can more easily be > backward compatible, don't rely on universal deployment and can > deliver (in many cases) now (or soon). Of course, they're not likely > to be perfect. They may not address all the aspects of the problem, > just the ones that the people who pay care enough about. What amazes me is the opposition to anything *other* than short-term band-aids. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 10:29:29 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29783 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TESDY01535 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:28:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WdA5-0000Og-9d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:28:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29775; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdA2-0001AZ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:28:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wd9x-0001AW-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:28:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wd9s-0000Lb-W3; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:28:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wd9f-0000LQ-OP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:27:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29771 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wd9d-0001AM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:27:45 -0400 Received: from bay8-f65.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.65] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wd9S-0001AJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:27:34 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:26:44 -0700 Received: from 62.253.12.120 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:26:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.12.120] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Kee Hinckley's Fascist NGO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2003 14:26:44.0219 (UTC) FILETIME=[770A94B0:01C33E4A] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:26:43 +0000 Part of civil liberities is the right to defend yourself, family, friends, and property. The 'GIEIS' system protects those who sign up to its infrastructure and defends those civil liberties. So, Ken obviously feels that defending your own property is a Fascist idea. Maybe the truth of the matter is that he is here advertising an Anti-Spam system by messagefire.com. A company that 'GIEIS' would make redundant overnight. Its quite clear that he's not above above slander and lies to achieve that too. But it won't work. Mark McCarron. >Message: 20 >Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:57:54 -0400 >To: asrg@ietf.org >From: Kee Hinckley >Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Second Response > >I've replied to this off-list (what can I say, I'm a sucker). >However my recommendation (if anyone cares) is that further on-list >replies to this proposal are a waste of bandwidth. We have quite >enough pointless battles as it is. Battling over whether it's >feasible to implement a fascist NGO with complete control over your >company's ability to send email is probably not something we need to >do. >-- >Kee Hinckley >http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account >http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society > >I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept >responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate >everyone else's. > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 21 >Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:07:07 -0400 >To: asrg@ietf.org >From: Yakov Shafranovich >Subject: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by > Yahoo > >Just as some feared, Yahoo's spam filters blocked confirmation emails from >the FTC's Do Not Call registry according to a Wired New Article >(http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59427,00.html). > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Yakov Shafranovich / >SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on >the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > >End of Asrg Digest _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 10:48:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29950 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TEmAO05754 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WdTO-0001Uj-CB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29943; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdTL-0001K0-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdTG-0001Jx-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WdTF-0001Rd-1T; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WdT7-0001RS-G8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:47:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29939 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:47:30 -0400 (EDT) From: tbetz@pobox.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdSl-0001JQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:47:31 -0400 Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net ([168.100.1.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdSa-0001Ix-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:47:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EB2AC25 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (VaMailArmor-2.0.1.7) id 35140-4439DC65; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:39:35 -0400 Received: from anatta (187-153.customer.cloud9.net [168.100.187.153]) by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30D8AC21 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:39:35 -0400 (EDT) To: "ASRG" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating Message-ID: <3EFEC39E.18637.8B647B8@localhost> Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira MailArmor (version: 2.0.1.7; VAE: 6.20.0.1; VDF: 6.20.0.24; host: russian-caravan.cloud9.net) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:46:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 29 Jun 2003, at 11:16, Jon Kyme wrote: [ Quoting Alan DeKok} > > The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once > > spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in > > that, too. > > I'm not certain of this. There is considerable evidence that it's already begun. I heard an interesting stoy on the subject on NPR's "On The Meda" yesterday. It plays on many stations over the weekend -- you can find links to live broadcasts at: ... or you can wait until they post the audio and transcript of the segment "Net Dropouts" at . The Pew Trust report on which they are reporting can be found at . A quick reading indicates that spam is only one contributing factor to the more general "problems with Internet Service Providers" cause for what the study calls "Net Dropouts". -- Tom Betz, System Administrator Greyston Foundation Phone 914-376-3903 ext 230 Processing the finest bytes since 1982... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 11:13:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00465 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TFD8Z12530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:13:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WdrY-0003G1-QK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:13:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00454; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdrY-0001SV-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:13:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WdrS-0001SS-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:13:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WdrO-00038Y-VI; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:12:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wdr6-00038C-Ij for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:12:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00436 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wdqq-0001S2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:12:24 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wdqf-0001Ru-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:12:13 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5TFBqGM001351 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:11:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306291511.h5TFBqGM001351@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:11:52 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Alan DeKok" > ... > Vernon's recent message is at least partially correct. Some current > anti-spam systems have made a difference for some people. What he's > missing is that they haven't made enough of a difference for people > like my friends grandmother. He's also shown his hand (IMHO), and > explained for the first time why he's opposed to solutions which > involve the IETF: his anti-spam system is a workable band-aid. In point of fact, the DCC is responsible for keeping only a trivial amount of spam out of my personal mail box. The vast majority is filtered from my mailbox by other means. Besides, as I have said, the DCC was not and is not intended deal with the current flood of spam, although it does surprisingly well at it (again, not for my mailbox). Instead the DCC is intended to deal with the spam that will replace the current sort after the DMA has dealt with the current sort. Mr. DeKok has shown his hand (IMHO) in his comment (again). He is one of the respected leaders and gurus of spam fighting here to order the efforts of the designers, coders, implementors, testers, and installers. > But band-aids aren't considered good patient care. Cures are. By that reasoning, absolutely no spam solution is good, because absolutely no spam solution can cure spam. An interesting fact about medical care is that the vast majority of patents get better despite the best medical care or are made sicker. That's not to say that medical care is not very valuable, but that except for a few ailments like broken bones, your main hope for getting better is in providence. Worse, except for a very few special cases like smallpox, there are only bandaids for individuals suffers and no real cures, and the case of the final cure of smallpox is not clear. Another fact about medical care is how much of what we spend on on medical care goes to those who document, direct, and control its delivery compared to those who actually deliver care or make drugs or appliances. > ... > What amazes me is the opposition to anything *other* than short-term > band-aids. There's no opposition to *doing* things. You are welcome to stop leading and teaching and switch to doing. You could take the best of the unjustly criticized ideas and implement and deploy it, but you won't. You will continue to tell us how wonderful things would be if only those of us who do things would follow your advice, just as contributors to other IRTF and IETF mailing lists have for years been pointing egregious flaws such as TCP sequence numbers that count bytes instead of records and congestion control that uses packet loss instead of explicit messages. The most common response to my charge is something about the unfairness of entrenched monopolies and that someone should force the doers of the world to do as the self-described experts direct. That's ever the case with real research. Van Jacobson didn't have a fraction as much to say about the major problems in the Internet as others did before (or after) he designed, implemented, tested, and deployed slow start. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 11:23:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00594 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TFN9O14041 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19We1F-0003eC-5M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00571; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19We1E-0001UO-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19We18-0001UL-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19We17-0003b9-6F; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19We0H-0003Zk-SR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:22:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00548 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19We02-0001U9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:21:54 -0400 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wdzm-0001U2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:21:38 -0400 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5TFKPgg004336; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306291520.h5TFKPgg004336@nic-naa.net> To: Vernon Schryver cc: asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:11:52 MDT." <200306291511.h5TFBqGM001351@calcite.rhyolite.com> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:20:25 -0400 > Mr. DeKok has shown his hand (IMHO) in his comment (again). He is one > of the respected leaders and gurus of spam fighting here to order the Well, I'd say he's got a lot of venom, and not a lot of bite, but didn't he leave asrg because I was insufficiently admiring??? Qualities of leadership that simply stagger the mind... Eric _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 11:41:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00827 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TFfE518186 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeIk-0004jF-NO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00820; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeIj-0001fQ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeIe-0001fN-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeIX-0004gA-Mn; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeI3-0004f5-0l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:40:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00808 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeI1-0001ej-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:40:29 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeHr-0001eG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:40:19 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19WeHL-0000Ft-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:39:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating To: "Alan DeKok" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:39:47 +0100 > > > The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once > > > spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in > > > that, too. > > > > I'm not certain of this. > > > It's happening already to people I know. A friends grandmother set But this is anecdote. It's got nothing to do with a meaningful prediction about the email use of "The vast majority". > What amazes me is the opposition to anything *other* than short-term > band-aids. > I would be very glad to see a radical solution which does away with the problem once and for all and has a sensible deployment path. Really. I'd want to buy in tomorrow. Who wouldn't ? Band-aid salesmen I guess. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 11:54:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00962 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TFsAr20903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeVF-0005R4-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00957; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeVE-0001ps-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeV9-0001pp-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeV6-0005Nn-UE; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeV1-0005NS-0x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:53:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00945 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeUk-0001pG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:53:38 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeUZ-0001p7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:53:28 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5TFrMa9005400 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:53:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306291553.h5TFrMa9005400@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: <3EFEC39E.18637.8B647B8@localhost> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:53:22 -0600 (MDT) > From: tbetz@pobox.com > ... > > > The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once > > > spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in > > > that, too. > > > > I'm not certain of this. > > There is considerable evidence that it's already begun. > > I heard an interesting stoy on the subject on NPR's "On The Meda" The old mass media including NPR hated the Internet at the start. Then they fell in love with it and how it was to transform humanity. Then they switched to talking about it being over the hill. To see how widely and long they've been flogging "net dropouts," see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Net+Dropouts%22 >... > The Pew Trust report on which they are reporting can be found at > . A quick > reading indicates that spam is only one contributing factor to the > more general "problems with Internet Service Providers" cause for > what the study calls "Net Dropouts". My take follows that of people who know a lot more about the ISP business than I do. It is that many ISPs are still selling below cost and trying to make it up in volume. Unlike the colorful TV advertisers that popularized that phrase, ISPs not saying that out loud and it's true. Worse, their volume is not increasing as it once was and that is dimming hopes that signing up more users will get them into the black. Instead of admitting that email is only mail, surf'in da web is merely a computer game, and that most people have better things to do, they'll leap on the hope that if they solve spam, they'll get profitable. And by the way, the reason they're not profitable today is the $3 to $100 per user per month that they are spending fighting spam--NOT! Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 11:56:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00997 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TFu7D21836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeX9-0005g7-2v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00991; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeX7-0001rj-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeX2-0001rf-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeX2-0005Zm-KY; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:56:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeWE-0005ZM-5a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:55:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00985 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeWD-0001qk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:55:09 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeW2-0001qZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:54:58 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19WeVv-0001Yp-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:54:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3EFEC39E.18637.8B647B8@localhost> Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating To: From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:54:51 +0100 > On 29 Jun 2003, at 11:16, Jon Kyme wrote: > [ Quoting Alan DeKok} > > > The vast majority of people will simply give up on email once > > > spam becomes too much trouble to deal with. I'll include ISP's in > > > that, too. > > > > I'm not certain of this. > > > There is considerable evidence that it's already begun. > I didn't question that it may have "begun". I don't believe that it'll just go on until the limit ("NO ONE" or even "The vast majority"). > > The Pew Trust report on which they are reporting can be found at > . A quick > reading indicates that spam is only one contributing factor to the > more general "problems with Internet Service Providers" cause for > what the study calls "Net Dropouts". > Thank you, I shall certainly read this. I gather it applies to the US market? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 12:16:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01266 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TGG9W26894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeqX-0006zh-6T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01260; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeqV-00027p-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WeqQ-00027m-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WeqO-0006wd-WC; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wepe-0006t0-Uh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:15:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01234 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:14:57 -0400 (EDT) From: asrg@millenix.mailshell.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WepO-00026X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:14:58 -0400 Received: from www13.mailshell.com ([209.157.66.247] helo=mailshell.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WepD-00026C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:14:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 12266 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jun 2003 16:14:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20030629161422.24615.qmail@mailshell.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability In-reply-to: <3EFE1AEB.5020406@tumbleweed.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <200306282210.AJQ57736@ms3.verisignmail.com> <3EFE1AEB.5020406@tumbleweed.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:13:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jean-Christophe Bandini wrote: >> The point is to allow a receiver to verify that the claimed sending >> server is, in fact, the one that sent the message. The method will >> verify spammer's machines just as well as non-spammers. > > > Yes i understood that part. > >> Right. So, don't refuse them. Simply mark them as "suspect." >> Then, let the mail clients deal with presenting them, filing them in >> "gray inboxes" etc. > > > Yes that's equivalent to what i meant by "ability to increase > probability of an email being spam if sender is not verified." > which you seemed to disagree with later on. > >> Wrong. You don't have to make domain creation expensive in order >> to have confidence in white/black domain lists as long as you can >> verify the source of a message. My proposal allows you to have >> confidence in the utility of your lists even though it adds zero cost >> to domain creation. > > > You lost me here. Here is what i meant and may be my thinking > is flawed but let me try again: the spammer can create every > day at sunrise a _new_ domain and its associated free signing cert, > then spend the day happily spamming. At the receiving end, i see > a new sender domain which is 'signed or verified' but i dont > know yet it is a spammer because that domain appeared today so > it is not in my black list yet. By the time i put it in my black > list the spammer has already moved on and start using a fresh > verified sender domain. > > This is exactly what spammers are doing today with domains in > spamvertised URLs: they use one or more new domains daily. > > Making it more difficult to create new verified domains > (using economics or not) would make black listing much more > valuable in a world with verified senders. Once we have verified senders, and thus blacklists that can accurately record what domains and servers have spammed, we can introduce a delay in the system to cross-check incoming mail against other servers and the recipient server's own inbound traffic. If it sees a large volume of messages from one sender, it can blacklist it before delivering the suspect messages. Although this could cause a slow-down in email delivery, and possibly increased server loads, it would present a fairly strong defense against mass-mailed spam. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 12:52:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01982 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TGncm00856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:49:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfMw-0000Dj-HC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:49:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01909; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfMu-0002c8-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:49:36 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfMp-0002bt-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:49:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfML-00007F-EH; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfLZ-00006X-HM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:48:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01885 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfLX-0002as-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:48:11 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfLN-0002aT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:48:01 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WfKQ-00028X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:47:02 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:11:52 MDT." <200306291511.h5TFBqGM001351@calcite.rhyolite.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:47:01 -0400 Vernon Schryver wrote: > Mr. DeKok has shown his hand (IMHO) in his comment (again). He is one > of the respected leaders and gurus of spam fighting here to order the > efforts of the designers, coders, implementors, testers, and installers. Unlike others here (pointedly pointing), I've never claimed to be a leader, an expert, a guru, or any other kind of wonderful person relating to spam fighting. I do, however, claim to believe my opinions are worth something. I also claim to be able to show logical errors and inconsistencies in the arguments of others. I've never claimed or tried to "order the efforts" of anyone. Vernon, please don't create & attack straw men. It wastes your valuable time. > > But band-aids aren't considered good patient care. Cures are. > > By that reasoning, absolutely no spam solution is good, because > absolutely no spam solution can cure spam. Once again, you're stuck on absolutes. As my messages to this list have repeatedly demonstrated, I do not propose or believe in absolutes, or perfect solutions. The only way my statement can be intrpreted as an absolute is by ignoring all of my previous history in this list. > There's no opposition to *doing* things. I disagree. You have consistently opposed (or silently ignored) any request which would even potentially discuss having you change your network behaviour. > You are welcome to stop leading and teaching and switch to doing. Since I've never said I *wasn't*, this is another straw man. > You could take the best of the unjustly criticized ideas and > implement and deploy it, but you won't. Another absolute statement from someone who's unaware of my off-ASRG activities. > The most common response to my charge is something about the > unfairness of entrenched monopolies and that someone should force > the doers of the world to do as the self-described experts direct. ... which leads to very nice dictatorial regimes for the experts, and horrible evil for everyone else. > That's ever the case with real research. Van Jacobson didn't have > a fraction as much to say about the major problems in the Internet > as others did before (or after) he designed, implemented, tested, > and deployed slow start. Ah, that's my mistake. I had assumed that ASRG was here to allow us to reach consensus on the problem, and approaches to a solution. I see now that we should go back to *real* experts like Van Jacobson, and not self-appointed experts, like, well..., not me. But who decides, Vernon? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 12:54:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02052 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TGs9t02543 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfRJ-0000ew-Mf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02043; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfRH-0002gK-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfRC-0002gH-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfRA-0000YW-Qj; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:54:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfQe-0000Y7-ES for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:53:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02006 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfQc-0002fZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:53:26 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfQS-0002fM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:53:16 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WfPl-00028k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:52:33 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:20:25 EDT." <200306291520.h5TFKPgg004336@nic-naa.net> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:52:32 -0400 Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote: > Well, I'd say he's got a lot of venom, and not a lot of bite, but didn't > he leave asrg because I was insufficiently admiring??? No... I got frustrated at your attitude that: a) I should shut up and stop contributing because I wasn't a widely acknowledged expert b) you were an expert c) you refused to draw on any of your expertise to justify your opinions d) when I told you that your thinking was a well-known logical fallacy, e) you complained to the chair, and asked him to censure me for my off-list messages to you. > Qualities of leadership that simply stagger the mind... Quite. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 12:59:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02141 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TGxAF03434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfWA-0000tJ-3C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02134; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfW8-0002kZ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfW2-0002kW-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfW1-0000mK-98; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WfVD-0000lK-20 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:58:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02105 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfTw-0002iw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:56:52 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WfTm-0002ir-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:56:42 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19WfT4-00028x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:55:58 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:39:47 BST." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:55:58 -0400 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > > It's happening already to people I know. A friends grandmother set > > But this is anecdote. It's got nothing to do with a meaningful prediction > about the email use of "The vast majority". I understand. From my personal experience, I have been hearing these anecdotes more and more often. Lacking sufficient time and resources to do a statistically meaningfull poll on the subject, I formed preliminary opinions based on the information I had access to. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 13:41:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02851 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5THfMt13168 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgB0-0003QJ-NQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02847; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgAy-00038D-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgAs-00038A-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgAf-0003N7-6W; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgAE-0003Mq-Nb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:40:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02836 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wg9x-00037F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:40:17 -0400 Received: from mail.espace.net ([81.2.117.194] helo=espace.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wg9m-00036w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:40:07 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.3] (81.2.117.199) by espace.net with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2.1) for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:39:43 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Fearghas McKay Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Second Response Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <1155214112-22067959@espace.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:39:18 +0100 At 21:46 +0000 28/6/03, Mark McCarron wrote: >Mark's Response: > >You don't know I am a mathematician and a trained UK accountant as well. >So, I will not be harsh on you :) Productivity costs, refers to increased >wage/production payments. This is an expense, a VERY real cash-flow, I can >assure you. The same goes for lost business opportunities, this is source >of capital, another VERY real cash-flow. Their reference to $12 Billion is >therefore, extremely literal. These costs are not spread across millions of >people, no one has the time to do research like that. Quotes like that are >often solely based upon the Fortune 500 companies. Those who are not on the RIPE Anti-SPAM WG mailing list will have missed this introduction that Mark made there: --==-- I fully understand that this mailing list is non-technical, however, maybe some of you know people who develop these systems and can pass it along. I have been reading the open letter regarding spam by Bill Gates. I used to work for MSN UK as technical support and I addressed this issue with them in 1997/1998. At that stage MSN's email servers were open to the world, although filters were in place, I found that I could send spam without to many problems. I have considered this problem extensivly for the last 5 or 6 years and have developed a solution. This solution is highly cost-effective and eliminates challange-response systems. --==-- To call a RIPE list non-technical is interesting however a quick google search also shows up: >"And Mark McCarron, an associate and advisory board member of >The Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association, wrote a research >article called "The Epsilon Theory." Mark calls it "Wild Speculation." >Nevertheless, he may have discovered how to regenerate living tissue! >The article may be viewed in the Development section of his website, >The Case for the Giza Necropolis Primer, at: > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/index.html He also claimed on the RIPE list that he has approached 500 ISPs and within a day 90% said that they would deploy his proposed system. He was unfortunatly unable to provide us with any names or references. In short I would suggest that we do not feed the troll. Cheers f PS SInce _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:13:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03262 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIDL819618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgfx-00056L-Gx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03251; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgfv-0003ZL-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:19 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgfp-0003ZI-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgfd-00053G-I1; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgez-00052S-8S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:12:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03215 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgeh-0003Xq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:12:03 -0400 Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgeR-0003XO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:11:52 -0400 Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5TIBEDj025424 for asrg@ietf.org env-from ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:11:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Vernon Schryver Message-Id: <200306291811.h5TIBEDj025424@calcite.rhyolite.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:11:14 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Alan DeKok" > > Mr. DeKok has shown his hand (IMHO) in his comment (again). He is one > > of the respected leaders and gurus of spam fighting here to order the > > efforts of the designers, coders, implementors, testers, and installers. > > Unlike others here (pointedly pointing), I've never claimed to be a > leader, an expert, a guru, or any other kind of wonderful person > relating to spam fighting. I do, however, claim to believe my > opinions are worth something. Pundits don't get to set the value of their own coinage. The value of your opinions, like the value of mine, is determined only by those who receive our opinions. For my part, when I hear opinions, I value those based on relevant experience, measurements, or experiements more than other sorts. > I also claim to be able to show logical > errors and inconsistencies in the arguments of others. Your repeated claims of expertise in logic sound strange. I doubt my substantial post-graduate education in math with a concentration on what is called in some circles "logic and foundations" is needed to see the many errors and inconsistencies in your contributions. > I've never claimed or tried to "order the efforts" of anyone. On the contrary, you did exactly that in this very message where you objected not only to my words but to my silences. Not only would do you direct my coding and deploying away from "band-aids" like the DCC toward your "cures," but you would control my criticisms. > Vernon, please don't create & attack straw men. It wastes your > valuable time. Except for reading the messages about Greylisting, all my time spent on this mailing list has been a dead loss for my spam fighting efforts. Because I found sufficient Greylisting descriptions and comments at least as trenchant elsewhere, even that doesn't count for ASRG. I continue to be flabbergasted that the levels of relevant technical, social, business, or political clues and of self-proclaimed but otherwise baseless expertise on spam and spam fighting are respectively far lower and higher in ASRG than in news.admin.net-abuse.email. I guess that shows how naive and unthinking I remain. Someday maybe I'll understand Sturgeon's Law. > > > But band-aids aren't considered good patient care. Cures are. > > > > By that reasoning, absolutely no spam solution is good, because > > absolutely no spam solution can cure spam. > > Once again, you're stuck on absolutes. As my messages to this list > have repeatedly demonstrated, I do not propose or believe in > absolutes, or perfect solutions. The only way my statement can be > intrpreted as an absolute is by ignoring all of my previous history in > this list. Perhaps it would be interesting to turn your great talents and skills in logic on your own statements. As far as I can tell, logic applied to your statements about "band-aids" not being "cures" for spam imply that you favor spam "cures" or "absolutes, or perfect solutions." > > There's no opposition to *doing* things. > > I disagree. You have consistently opposed (or silently ignored) any > request which would even potentially discuss having you change your > network behaviour. So by not commenting on ideas I'm opposing them? Yes, my words about opposition to doing things were chosen poorly. There is no effective opposition to people doing their own things, but there is opposition to self-proclaimed experts directing the efforts of doers, by the doers themselves. "Go-ers" are a standard problem in standards committees. > ... > > You could take the best of the unjustly criticized ideas and > > implement and deploy it, but you won't. > > Another absolute statement from someone who's unaware of my > off-ASRG activities. On the contrary, your fame didn't exactly precede you, but it certainly arrived soon after. Or perhaps I checked too many of the wrong places. > > The most common response to my charge is something about the > > unfairness of entrenched monopolies and that someone should force > > the doers of the world to do as the self-described experts direct. > > ... which leads to very nice dictatorial regimes for the experts, > and horrible evil for everyone else. just as I predicted. > > That's ever the case with real research. Van Jacobson didn't have > > a fraction as much to say about the major problems in the Internet > > as others did before (or after) he designed, implemented, tested, > > and deployed slow start. > > Ah, that's my mistake. I had assumed that ASRG was here to allow us > to reach consensus on the problem, and approaches to a solution. I > see now that we should go back to *real* experts like Van Jacobson, > and not self-appointed experts, like, well..., not me. > > But who decides, Vernon? Those who do will continue to decide what they will do. Those whose contributions involve applying great skill and talent in logic will also continue. Consensus is required only for those approaches that involve major changes to existing protocols or other efforts coordinated among many people (who not incidentally are doers instead of go-ers). For various general reasons, I doubt that any such broad-action spam solution is possible and desirable, except for non-technical efforts like laws that are out of the scope of the IRTF and IETF. One of my failings is being slow about knowing when to quit. I'm outta here for at least the next month. Feel free to construe my silence as opposition to anything and everything. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:15:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03305 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIF8P20781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wghg-0005P6-6q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03301; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wghd-0003az-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WghY-0003aw-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WghZ-0005IR-QN; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wggi-0005D9-Q5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:14:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03278 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WggR-0003Zo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:51 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WggE-0003ZG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:13:40 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141206.00ba0ad0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org, "Paul Judge" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Kee Hinckley's Fascist NGO In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:12:56 -0400 We are all here for the same purpose. Fighting will only increase discordance in the group which will make spammers much happier people. Yakov At 02:26 PM 6/29/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >Part of civil liberities is the right to defend yourself, family, friends, >and property. The 'GIEIS' system protects those who sign up to its >infrastructure and defends those civil liberties. So, Ken obviously feels >that defending your own property is a Fascist idea. > >Maybe the truth of the matter is that he is here advertising an Anti-Spam >system by messagefire.com. A company that 'GIEIS' would make redundant >overnight. Its quite clear that he's not above above slander and lies to >achieve that too. > >But it won't work. > >Mark McCarron. > > > >>Message: 20 >>Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:57:54 -0400 >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>From: Kee Hinckley >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] The Solution To Spam - The Second Response >> >>I've replied to this off-list (what can I say, I'm a sucker). >>However my recommendation (if anyone cares) is that further on-list >>replies to this proposal are a waste of bandwidth. We have quite >>enough pointless battles as it is. Battling over whether it's >>feasible to implement a fascist NGO with complete control over your >>company's ability to send email is probably not something we need to >>do. >>-- >>Kee Hinckley >>http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account >>http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society >> >>I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept >>responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate >>everyone else's. >> >> >>--__--__-- >> >>Message: 21 >>Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:07:07 -0400 >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>Subject: [Asrg] News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by >> Yahoo >> >>Just as some feared, Yahoo's spam filters blocked confirmation emails from >>the FTC's Do Not Call registry according to a Wired New Article >>(http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59427,00.html). >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Yakov Shafranovich / >>SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on >>the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4) >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>--__--__-- >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Asrg mailing list >>Asrg@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >> >> >>End of Asrg Digest > >_________________________________________________________________ >Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:17:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03352 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIH8F21926 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgjc-0005hU-IN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03342; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgjZ-0003d2-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgjU-0003cz-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgjV-0005VL-Lv; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgif-0005Pv-5R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03334 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgic-0003bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:06 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgiQ-0003ba-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141354.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Chris Lewis" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3EFEE370.6060106@americasm01.nt.com> References: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151955.00bb9668@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:14:29 -0400 At 09:02 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Chris Lewis wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>>On our spamtrap, we see machines making _thousands_ of transactions that >>>consist of only: >>> HELO somevalue >>> QUIT > >>Have you considering the possibility that they are checking for RMX/rDNS >>compliance? > >Repeating exactly the same test 20,000+ times in a day? > >I don't think so. I meant the spammers - perhaps the spammers are checking different servers whether they implement RMX. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:25:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03455 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIP9W23290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgrN-00062l-9f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03445; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgrK-0003k6-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgrF-0003k3-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgrF-0005zi-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgph-0005yi-IL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:24:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03442 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgpf-0003iV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:23:23 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgpS-0003iK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:23:11 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141938.00bb2008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , , "John Fenley" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:22:48 -0400 At 12:18 AM 6/27/2003 -0700, Howard Roth wrote: >[..] > >Here's an idea about validating a message before I can ever see it. This >can be considered a consent-based concept, as it can be a parameter at the >ISP end for each mail user. It adds quite a bit of overhead to the mail >server as it requires two additional messages for each one sent. I see it >being part of the MTA process. I send a message to someone. The MTA >replies to the message with a "proof of sender request, " basically a >specially formatted email message that goes back to the server that sent it >based on the return address. The sender's MTA responds with a "confirmation >request" if it did send the message and the message is now available for >download based on moving it from the pending directory to a user directory. >If there is no response within a certain period the message is discarded. >[..] This has been proposed before by John Fenley as part of C/R systems (see this message http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05173.html). I was thinking of putting it into the CRI protocol that Eric Dean is working on. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:30:51 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03548 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIUNu24428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgwR-0006Lv-En for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03531; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgwO-0003oW-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgwI-0003oN-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgw6-00068m-6k; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgvw-00067u-Ay for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03503 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgve-0003nq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:34 -0400 Received: from gw.enyo.de ([212.9.189.178] helo=mail.enyo.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgvU-0003n7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:24 -0400 Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgue-0001km-Pp; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:28:32 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgue-00014e-Ly; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:28:32 +0200 To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Spam on cellphones References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141445.00b3c458@solidmatrix.com> From: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141445.00b3c458@solidmatrix.com> (Yakov Shafranovich's message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:14:47 -0400") Message-ID: <878yrkhh67.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:28:32 +0200 Yakov Shafranovich writes: > There is no reason why cell phone companies around the world could > not have developed a separate messaging framework NOT based on SMTP > and email. SMS (at least in GSM-based networks) differs a lot from email: limited size, messages may be discarded etc. It's certainly not similar to SMTP. Furthermore, this is not a new problem, it's already quite common in countries with more pervasive mobile networking infrastructure. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:30:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03565 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIUSN24445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgwW-0006MC-FH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03532; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgwO-0003oY-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:20 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgwI-0003oO-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgw5-00068G-Nx; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:30:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgvN-00067l-Ps for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03498 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgvL-0003nY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:15 -0400 Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgvA-0003nG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:29:04 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19Wgup-00083d-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:28:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating To: "Alan DeKok" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.7] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 158.152.118.31 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:28:43 +0100 >Lacking sufficient time and > resources to do a statistically meaningfull poll on the subject, I > formed preliminary opinions based on the information I had access to. > Others have formed other opinions. Some aren't as pessimistic as you. Some believe that incrementally wider employment of current imperfect "solutions" will be "good enough". I'm aware of users of a webmail system complaining bitterly about the spam they're delivered. This is because they haven't figured out how to "turn on" the simple (and largely effective) anti-spam facility provided. I do a user interface tweak (or change the default setting) and, bingo!, 100k largely spam-free inboxes. Time *will* tell. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:34:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03633 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIYAf25236 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh06-0006Yx-08 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03625; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh03-0003sA-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgzx-0003s7-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgzx-0006Se-DB; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgze-0006ST-So for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03622 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgzc-0003rY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:40 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgzP-0003rO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629143125.00ba0ad0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Florian Weimer , Yakov Shafranovich From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Spam on cellphones Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <878yrkhh67.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141445.00b3c458@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141445.00b3c458@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:33:06 -0400 At 08:28 PM 6/29/2003 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich writes: > > > There is no reason why cell phone companies around the world could > > not have developed a separate messaging framework NOT based on SMTP > > and email. > >SMS (at least in GSM-based networks) differs a lot from email: limited >size, messages may be discarded etc. It's certainly not similar to >SMTP. > >Furthermore, this is not a new problem, it's already quite common in >countries with more pervasive mobile networking infrastructure. I think but not 100% sure, but in the US SMS messages between carriers go over SMTP. However, many carriers operate email-to-SMS gateways which are probably how the spam gets to the users. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:38:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03693 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIc9B27534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh3x-0007A1-F4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03688; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh3u-0003vp-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh3p-0003vm-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh3p-00076w-PN; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh2d-0006nZ-IL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:37:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03679 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh2a-0003uY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:36:44 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh2M-0003uJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:36:31 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629143402.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: , "'Jon Kyme'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Cc: "'ASRG'" In-Reply-To: <004b01c33cd7$43f87f20$660aa8c0@BOBDEV> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627115412.00b97d88@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:36:04 -0400 At 02:09 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote: >Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > an overall consent framework > Yes, I'd like to see that framework... I think there are a >number of questions that should be answered by it: > > What is the "language" of consent? When you consent, what is it >that you consent to? Or, when you withhold consent, what is it that you >withhold consent for? In simple systems, consent is binary and focused >only on senders. Either a sender may, or may not, send messages. This is definitely an issue that needs to be defined. I think we need to define a broad overview of consent framework and then start working on specific issues such as this. >However, some have proposed that consent be granted in a much more >granular fashion. Thus, you should be able to consent based on a number >of attributes such as: > 0. Identity of sender > 1. Size of message > 2. Encoding of message (character sets, HTML, etc) > 3. Source IP (presence on white/blacklists) > 4. From: header matches with sending server (i.e. RMX, etc.) > 5. Presence of signatures > 6. Presence of attachments > 7. Rate of message arrival (i.e. only 3 messages per day per >sender...) > 8. Words used in message. (i.e. no message using "bad" words) > 9. Use of Multi-part MIME > 10. etc... > The goal here should be to define the "language" of consent. To >show what can be said and perhaps understand under what circumstances it >is reasonable to say these things and what benefit can come from saying >them. Also, some attention should be paid to the issues of what can and >cannot be determined by a machine. For instance, a machine can easily >measure the size of message. A machine can also, in some cases, >determine what account was used to send a message. However, a machine >will not be able to determine the actual human who caused a message to >be sent. (not even with PKI, signatures, etc...) Very good point. > We should distinguish between consent which is implied (by >reliance on some mechanism such as RMX) or explicit -- i.e. consent that >is expressed independent of the consent management mechanism in some >form like a "license to send" or a consent token. > Explicit statements of consent have interesting properties >especially if they are encoded in a machine readable form. For instance, >a simple expression of consent such as "I don't except mail that >contains the word 'Viagra'." can be used to parameterize the behaviour >of spam filters on the recipient's desktop as well as on upstream >processors such as the recipient's ISP's servers. One might even pass >such a statement to a potential sender. In one possible world, a sender >might have a pop-up in their editor that warns them that "Use of the >word 'Viagra' will prevent delivery of this message to one or more of >the current recipients." > An expression of consent might also serve as a license that can >be used by the sender. For instance, if I consent to receive mail from >you, you should be able to use some kind of a token or certificate to >ensure that your messages bypass interference by any filtering >mechanisms in the channel between us. These all are very good points. I will be writing up something later on this week and putting in on the list laying out the consent framework and different issues that need to be defined. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 14:40:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03743 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIe9s28037 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh5t-0007I8-Do for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03734; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh5q-0003y4-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh5l-0003y1-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh5l-0007En-Vo; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wh4t-0007E1-Ew for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:39:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03720 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh4q-0003wq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:39:04 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wh4d-0003wR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:38:52 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629143630.00b414f8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:37:26 -0400 At 09:19 PM 6/27/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >Yakov, > >I'll summarize my response based on your points and questions below: > >What I'm talking about is that our consent framework define a very, very >general set of standards such that: > >1. vendors can develop an anti-spam software module based on whatever >they think is a good idea. > >2. this module can be installed/plugged in/inserted/etc such that it >will apply to either the MUA or MTA, depending on how it was intended. > >3. each module can interoperate with both the framework (of course) and >each other. This would allow modules to be installed in "series" or >possibly "parallel" so that several different modules can be stacked to >provide a powerful anti-spam technology. > >4. The modules can be controlled by a hierarchical organization starting >w/ the ISP at the highest level, then cascading to the domain, then the >end user. All correct, >If we think this is a good idea, then we can take all the different >specific anti-spam approaches that have been proposed so far and go back >and forth between thinking up the framework and thinking up the >modifications that would be required to the existing proposed >technologies. Yes that is what I am trying to accomplish. >The framework would primarily define the "bus" or the basic way that >data would be passed from one module to another both for the MTA and MUA >perspective. The analogy here is we create a "PCI bus" designed to >allow end-users to control email that gets to their inbox and we let >customer need and market forces to create the specific "PCI Cards" that >get plugged into a given email infrastructure. I don't know if there would be a "bus" of some sort, more likely a few interacting protocols like CRI. >Does this make sense or am I completely way off in understanding what >we're talking about when we say framework? > >Peter Kay >President >TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com >The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > > > > >I think you've got the beginning of a consent-based > > framework. I like > > >it. What I'm getting out of this is: > > > > > >A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on MUA or MTA > > >(ISP). > > > > Plug-in is not the correct word here, we are seeking to > > create a general > > framework with details left for specific implementations. > > > > >B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition, > > related to > > >the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR to all the > > >other methods mentioned below. > > > > Each implementation/ > > > > >C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting > > w/ the ISP > > >(for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate > > >applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on > > varying levels > > >of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP > > >whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to > > blacklist it. > > > > Are you suggesting that the various implementations should be able to > > interoperate? This can be done by defining interoperability > > protocols like > > the CRI protocol for C/R systems. > > > > > > > > >To me, this reinforces what I've seen over the past few > > months on this > > >group: > > > > > >1. no one can agree what spam is. So at the end of the day, the user > > >has to have the power to decide. This is in line w/ the charter. > > > > Agreed > > > > >2. no one technological approach "religion" (i.e. filtering, > > C/R, etc) > > >is adequate to deal with the general problem of "unwanted email". > > > > Agreed. > > > > >3. spammers will change their methods as time goes on, so the > > >architecture must allow for that. > > > > Agreed > > > > > > >In addition, a consent-based framework allows for multiple > > vendors to > > >participate. If we can create some sort of "email bus" I > > think it has a > > >lot of potential. > > > > An email bus? Can you explain this? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for > > consent-based system > > > > as per > > > > charter: > > > > > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to filter incoming > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, > > and are not > > > > mandated. > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging from > > > > banning all email > > > > not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a > > > > whitelist of trusted > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of > > > > unknown senders. > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to > > > > the bulk folder, > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses > > > > of trusted senders, > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features > > > > such as digital > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such > > > > email from > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the > > > > inbox unless > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon > > > > receiving a > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as > > > > email coming > > > > from known open relays is blocked. > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or > > > > encrypted to > > > > protect privacy. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Asrg mailing list > > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Asrg mailing list > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:00:02 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04276 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIxYL32062 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:59:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhOg-0008Kk-Bv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:59:34 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04250; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhO8-0008Dg-U0; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhNZ-0008D1-KG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:58:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04213 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhNW-0004AF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:58:22 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhNF-00049Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:58:09 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) In-Reply-To: <3EFDCEB1.30D79C71@rsbx.net> References: <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:55:33 -0400 At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote: >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and >a diff of the important changes between the two documents. >[..] > > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. >[..] How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) and the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/). Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:05:57 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03353 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TIH8d21920 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgjc-0005hS-GR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03341; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgjZ-0003cy-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgjT-0003cv-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WgjV-0005TP-30; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wgif-0005Pw-GX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03337 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wgid-0003bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:16:07 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WgiR-0003bb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:15:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141445.00b3c458@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Subject: [Asrg] News Article - Spam on cellphones Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:14:47 -0400 This Houston Chronicle article (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1971965) discusses the growing problem of SMS spam on cell phones. Two particular issues jumped out at me. The first is the possibility that increased cell phone spam will lead to people shuting off cell phones akin to email users stopping to use email: ---snip---- Consumers receiving spam, like Merino, are beginning to turn off their cell phones -- to the horror of cell phone companies. Companies are worried they will lose customers because of spam, and most are taking a proactive stand against it by setting up filters and working with federal authorities on regulation. "If your customers are receiving messages they don't want, they will turn off their phones, and that's bad for business," Larson said. "If consumers turn off their phones, they won't be taking calls and they're less likely to make calls. The fewer calls they make, the less revenue for wireless carriers." ----snip---- The second being that the state of Texas might make SMS spam be covered under the state's Do-Not-Call list: ----snip---- So far, the new rules in Texas apply to text spam sent from cell phone to cell phone. However, Public Utilities Commission spokesman Terry Hadley said the organization will review the new law and determine whether it will include text spam transmitted through the Internet. ----snip--- This raises an interesting issue. There is no reason why cell phone companies around the world could not have developed a separate messaging framework NOT based on SMTP and email. However, they did and you can see from this example the far reach of entrenched standards and how hard it would be to replace SMTP or create a parallel secure email system. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:13:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05458 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJD7s02693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whbn-0000hM-Op for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05410; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whbm-0004ND-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whbh-0004NA-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:13:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whbf-0000eH-Bj; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:12:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whas-0000dU-PQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:12:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05296 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whac-0004M4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:11:54 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhaR-0004LX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:11:43 -0400 Received: from play.gamerz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id h5TFBXpf024456 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:11:33 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h5TFBVAB024444; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:11:31 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Message-ID: <20030629151131.GE15667@gamerz.net> References: <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:11:31 -0400 On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 02:55:33PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote: > > >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS > >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and > >a diff of the important changes between the two documents. > >[..] > > > > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain > > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay > > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The > > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections > > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the > > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. > >[..] > > How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) and > the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at > http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/). RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote MTA. IOW, If I connect to a remote MTA and my MTA sends the greeting EHLO play.gamerz.net. That MTA can do a lookup of my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.play.gamerz.net and see immediately that if it gets my.ip.ad.dr as the response, that, indeed, I am a DRIP subscribed host. If any other host attempts to connect and claim to be play.gamerz.net, the IPs will not match (or there will be no record at all). If the IPs do not match, it is a host forging my hostname. Drop the connection like a hot potato[e]. If no record is returned at all I can't glean anything (yet). The RECOMMENDED behaviour is to stop dropping hostname parts... my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.gamerz.net my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.net If either of those return a value, I can say "gamerz.net" does claim to support DRIP records. but since play.gamerz.net was not found that host is not authorized to send mail OUT... It should have sent mail via the designated gamerz.net relay. And as such, I should drop this connection. If no records of any kind are found (even when searching the parents) I know this domain does not subscribe to the DRIP idea. I can't assume anything. But long(ish) term, if enough domains adopt DRIP, MTAs might adopt a "if I can't get your DRIP records I won't talk to you" (much like the current "if I can't resolve your reverse DNS, I won't talk to you") Richard "who should be working on the DRIP milter, but its too nice outside, so is going to the pool" Rognlie -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Oracle Prophet / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | The past is the future \__/ | Nobody expects the spammish inquisition _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:18:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05854 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJIGm04297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whgm-00017E-4N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05844; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whgk-0004SR-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whge-0004SN-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhgX-00010j-Cv; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhfZ-000106-6C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05774 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhfX-0004Qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:16:59 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhfL-0004QN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:16:49 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151605.00b414f8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Richard Rognlie From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Cc: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:16:06 -0400 At 11:11 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: >On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 02:55:33PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote: > > > > >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS > > >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and > > >a diff of the important changes between the two documents. > > >[..] > > > > > > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain > > > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay > > > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The > > > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections > > > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the > > > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. > > >[..] > > > > How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch > > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) and > > the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at > > http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/). > >RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has >nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the >hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote >MTA. >[..] Dealing with the return envelope has its own problems (DSN messages with empty MAIL FROM <>) so it seems that dealing with the HELO/EHLO is better. BUT, the bottom line is that both proposals are DNS based and propose additional DNS records. Whether the filtering is done on HELO/EHLO level or return envelope is something to be left to the implementators. Both proposals are basically the same - they are mandating DNS records. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:18:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05856 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJIGX04316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whgm-00017X-AI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05842; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whgk-0004SU-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whge-0004SO-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhgX-00010y-Ow; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whfu-00010B-Og for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05811 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whft-0004RC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:21 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whfi-0004R8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:10 -0400 Received: from play.gamerz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id h5TFHQpf025898 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:17:26 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h5TFHQiY025888; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:17:26 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Message-ID: <20030629151726.GG15667@gamerz.net> References: <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <20030629151131.GE15667@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030629151131.GE15667@gamerz.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:17:26 -0400 > RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has > nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the > hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote > MTA. > > IOW, If I connect to a remote MTA and my MTA sends the greeting > EHLO play.gamerz.net. That MTA can do a lookup of > my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.play.gamerz.net and see immediately > that if it gets my.ip.ad.dr as the response, that, indeed, I am > a DRIP subscribed host. If any other host attempts to connect > and claim to be play.gamerz.net, the IPs will not match (or there > will be no record at all). > > If the IPs do not match, it is a host forging my hostname. Drop > the connection like a hot potato[e]. If no record is returned at all D'oh! I forgot to mention. We don't actually drop the connection here. We can't. It might be a host that is doing the EHLO in preparation for an SMTP AUTH session for a true "local" user, who happens to be roaming. We don't start rejections until later (during the env-from when I can check the status of the SMTP AUTH flags [in the milter implementation, anyway. other MTA implementations methodologies may vary]) > I can't glean anything (yet). The RECOMMENDED behaviour is to > stop dropping hostname parts... > my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.gamerz.net > my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.net > > If either of those return a value, I can say "gamerz.net" does claim > to support DRIP records. but since play.gamerz.net was not found > that host is not authorized to send mail OUT... It should have sent > mail via the designated gamerz.net relay. And as such, I should > drop this connection. > > If no records of any kind are found (even when searching the parents) > I know this domain does not subscribe to the DRIP idea. I can't > assume anything. But long(ish) term, if enough domains adopt DRIP, > MTAs might adopt a "if I can't get your DRIP records I won't talk to > you" (much like the current "if I can't resolve your reverse DNS, > I won't talk to you") > > Richard "who should be working on the DRIP milter, but its too nice > outside, so is going to the pool" Rognlie -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Oracle Prophet / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | The past is the future \__/ | Nobody expects the spammish inquisition _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:20:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06004 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJK8Z05540 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whia-0001RH-SM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05980; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhiZ-0004UB-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhiT-0004U8-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhiU-0001Kr-7Y; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whhp-0001JW-Jn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:19:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05945 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whho-0004TX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:19:20 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whhc-0004TB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:19:09 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151815.00bb2008@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Richard Rognlie From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Cc: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030629151726.GG15667@gamerz.net> References: <20030629151131.GE15667@gamerz.net> <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <20030629151131.GE15667@gamerz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:48 -0400 At 11:17 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > > RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has > > nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the > > hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote > > MTA. > > > > IOW, If I connect to a remote MTA and my MTA sends the greeting > > EHLO play.gamerz.net. That MTA can do a lookup of > > my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.play.gamerz.net and see immediately > > that if it gets my.ip.ad.dr as the response, that, indeed, I am > > a DRIP subscribed host. If any other host attempts to connect > > and claim to be play.gamerz.net, the IPs will not match (or there > > will be no record at all). > > > > If the IPs do not match, it is a host forging my hostname. Drop > > the connection like a hot potato[e]. If no record is returned at all > >D'oh! I forgot to mention. We don't actually drop the connection here. >We can't. It might be a host that is doing the EHLO in preparation >for an SMTP AUTH session for a true "local" user, who happens to be >roaming. We don't start rejections until later (during the env-from >when I can check the status of the SMTP AUTH flags [in the milter >implementation, anyway. other MTA implementations methodologies may >vary]) Very good point. We can probably drop the connection after MAIL FROM or RCPT TO. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:22:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06038 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJM7f06432 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhkV-0001ff-Rm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06031; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhkU-0004Ul-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhkO-0004Ui-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhkO-0001ZJ-Ug; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:22:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whk6-0001Z4-1P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:21:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06028 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whk4-0004Ue-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:21:40 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whju-0004Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:21:30 -0400 Received: from play.gamerz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id h5TFLipf026844 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:21:44 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h5TFLgq5026843; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:21:42 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Message-ID: <20030629152142.GH15667@gamerz.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:21:42 -0400 On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 03:15:26PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 11:11 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > > >On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 02:55:33PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote: > >> > >> >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS > >> >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and > >> >a diff of the important changes between the two documents. > >> >[..] > >> > > >> > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain > >> > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay > >> > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The > >> > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections > >> > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the > >> > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. > >> >[..] > >> > >> How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch > >> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) > >and > >> the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at > >> http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/). > > > >RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has > >nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the > >hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote > >MTA. > >[..] > > Dealing with the return envelope has its own problems (DSN messages with > empty MAIL FROM <>) so it seems that dealing with the HELO/EHLO is better. > BUT, the bottom line is that both proposals are DNS based and propose > additional DNS records. Whether the filtering is done on HELO/EHLO level or > return envelope is something to be left to the implementators. Both > proposals are basically the same - they are mandating DNS records. Just additional records. Not any additional record types. And as such, we are not at the mercy of waiting for any particular flavor of BIND to work its way out into the mainstream. FWIW, this is part 1 of 2 proposals. Ray (and his hearty band of cohorts) will be working on the 2nd part [formalizing it] soon. It will be working on the validity of the headers (not the env-from, but the *whole* bunch of headers). but I'll leave it's discussion to him. It's *verra nice...* -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Oracle Prophet / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | The past is the future \__/ | Nobody expects the spammish inquisition _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:25:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06123 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJP8d07312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhnQ-0001tr-Ta for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06114; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhnP-0004WA-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhnK-0004W7-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhnJ-0001qn-0b; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhmP-0001lF-CP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:24:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhmO-0004Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0400 Received: from 000-254-303.area7.spcsdns.net ([68.27.233.50] helo=68.27.233.50) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhmC-0004Vc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:23:53 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629152225.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Richard Rognlie From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Cc: Raymond S Brand , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20030629152142.GH15667@gamerz.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:23:30 -0400 At 11:21 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: >On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 03:15:26PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > At 11:11 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > > > > >On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 02:55:33PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > >> At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote: > > >> > > >> >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS > > >> >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and > > >> >a diff of the important changes between the two documents. > > >> >[..] > > >> > > > >> > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain > > >> > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay > > >> > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The > > >> > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP > connections > > >> > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the > > >> > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. > > >> >[..] > > >> > > >> How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch > > >> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) > > >and > > >> the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at > > >> http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/). > > > > > >RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has > > >nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the > > >hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote > > >MTA. > > >[..] > > > > Dealing with the return envelope has its own problems (DSN messages with > > empty MAIL FROM <>) so it seems that dealing with the HELO/EHLO is better. > > BUT, the bottom line is that both proposals are DNS based and propose > > additional DNS records. Whether the filtering is done on HELO/EHLO > level or > > return envelope is something to be left to the implementators. Both > > proposals are basically the same - they are mandating DNS records. > >Just additional records. Not any additional record types. >And as such, we are not at the mercy of waiting for any particular >flavor of BIND to work its way out into the mainstream. Would it be logical to combine all the RMX/RDNS/etc proposals into one cohesive document? >FWIW, this is part 1 of 2 proposals. Ray (and his hearty band of cohorts) >will be working on the 2nd part [formalizing it] soon. It will be >working on the validity of the headers (not the env-from, but the >*whole* bunch of headers). but I'll leave it's discussion to him. Thanks for the information. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:26:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06185 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJQ7607949 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhoN-000248-S5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06158; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhoM-0004X5-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhoG-0004X2-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WhoH-0001xj-3Z; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:26:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Whnx-0001xQ-Oc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06122 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Whnh-0004WL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:25 -0400 Received: from mailhost.aix.cc ([4.18.158.16]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WhnS-0004W2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:25:11 -0400 Received: by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix, from userid 2) id 372331D8D92; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wildm (unknown [4.36.172.251]) by mailhost.aix.cc (Postfix) with SMTP id C01501D8AAF for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <014a01c33e73$15f75e00$3ed2fea9@wildm> From: "M Wild" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] A simpleton's view of ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:17:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings - I have been reading ASRG for approximately two months now and I am alarmed at the direction the recent discussions have been taking. It seems the list has deteriorated into a series of ad hominem attacks with precious little useful discussion. I have limited experience with technical discussions lists (thus the Subject line :) perhaps this is just a mandatory phase that such lists go through. As I haven't posted lately just some quick background. I am the System Administrator for a small local ISP managing in the low several thousands mailboxes. As several people have pointed out the margins in the ISP business are *EXTREMELY* low leaving precious little excess resource to deal with what I find an alarming and intractable problem that threatens our business. I am *NOT* a Unix (Linux actually) guru, simply a frustrated and overworked computer professional attempting to deal with an *VERY* resistant problem. While I have the ability read documentation and install software (most times :-/ ) I do not have the desire or ability to create my own software, thus I am forced to use solutions that others provide...primarily for free. I will not attempt to divine Alan DeKok's motivations for his posts however I do have to agree with his assertion that SMTP is fundamentally flawed in its current incarnation. Many legitimately useful features used by innocent parties are also abused by the spammers to deliver their crap. This, IMHO, is the core of the problem. Folks don't want to give up the flawed features that they legitimately use in order to deny their use to spammers. Unless this position changes I do not see how this group can either solve or even reduce the problem to manageable levels. I have read some interesting proposals (RMX and Greylisting spring immediately to mind) which is why I am still subscribed to the list. One thing that I have found somewhat alarming in some of the proposals is the amount of "state information" required to be maintained on the mail servers. An example of this would be the triples (sender/receiver/transmitting IP address) though I find this state information to be less troublesome as it is self generating and has a limited lifetime. While there are serious privacy issues with such things as sender whitelists my practical concern is I *REALLY* don't want to be responsible for maintaining a backup of this information when (*NOT* if) the mail server fails. I don't see maintaining whitelist information/sender keys on the client machines as much of an improvement. My user base consists primarily of casual home computer users/small business owners who have *NO* conception of system administration issues such as backup let alone how to accomplish such a task. My approach to spam amelioration has taken the network abuse approach. I am using rDNS on my servers and block approximately 75% of mail connection attempts (on the order of 150,000 per day) How many of these are "legitimate" connections I really couldn't tell you. I do know the amount of spam that I receive (and I have several spam prone addresses, mostly role accounts or addresses that appear on our website) has decreased though the effectiveness of this measure is significantly less than it was a year ago during our last attempt. Based on customer complaints my sense is that our little session of DNS police has reformed the more responsive providers and the customers whose correspondent's provider was less than cooperative have cancelled. I did not take this step lightly, it was choice between having an at least useful mail system and fielding customer complaints on double digit delivery times. As part of our philosophy of being a good Internet citizen we use virus scanning on all of our mail servers. While this does reduce the possibility of our customers being a source of infection it also carries a considerable burden in sending and receiving email. This last statement brings me to the features that I am looking for in an anti-spam solution. The most important requirement is that the solution is effective in the SMTP phase. Once my server has received the /n./n it has committed considerable resource to attempt to deliver that message. The second most important requirement is that the solution makes the accept/reject decision based on firm, indisputable criteria...ie this server *IS* who it says it is, this sender can receive the bounce should the message prove undeliverable...basically the sending machine does not have to lie to get me to accept the message. I will, most likely, be implementing some DNSBL block lists, open proxies have the unfortunate characteristic of having valid rDNS (maintained by the provider) and are my primary spam source. I am also intrigued by DCC as the answer to the question "Has this message been sent to 30,000,000 of my closest friends?" is apropos to an accept/reject decision. I am not a fan of content filters as we, by policy, provide an unfiltered internet connection. There are just too many problems (again IMHO) with examining content to entrust the machine to make a "fuzzy" decision. As I stated above the solution *MUST NOT* require maintaining a lot (a judgment call admittedly) state information. When my server fails I want to be able reload it with the current version of my MTA (postfix, if you're curious), MDA (cyrus, again, if you're curious) and virus scanner and be back down the road. One of the reasons I found Greylisting to be interesting, despite maintaining state, is the that state information is self generating. A couple of days after the catastrophic failure most important state information would come back on its own. There would be some pain involved, but that is a given after a critical machine failure. I apologize for the length of this post and my simplistic viewpoint, however it is the only one I have. I am hoping that this post will provide the more capable and more intelligent members of the list with an idea of the requirements/desires of administrators that cannot or will not "roll their own" solution. As a final thought we did actually consider stopping doing email altogether. Solving or, at least, reducing the spam problem to a nuisance level has become a "revenge thing" for me, for better or worse. I am absolutely astounded that I have difficulties reliably running a few thousands of mailboxes with more computing horsepower than it took to put a man on the moon. There has to be a better way and my hope (which is still there:) is that way will come from this group. Regards Mike _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:42:42 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06504 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJgDH10754 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wi3x-0002nN-Dx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06497; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wi3v-0004lt-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wi3q-0004lq-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wi3k-0002k7-TT; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wi3L-0002ju-OI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:41:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06490 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wi35-0004l0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:41:19 -0400 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wi2u-0004kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:41:08 -0400 Received: from play.gamerz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id h5TFfOpf028072 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:24 -0400 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id h5TFfNcX028071; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:23 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Message-ID: <20030629154123.GI15667@gamerz.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629152225.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629152225.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:41:23 -0400 > Would it be logical to combine all the RMX/RDNS/etc proposals into one > cohesive document? Perhaps eventually. But for now, we're searching for ideas that can be cobbled together which we can use separately to incrementally start beating spam into submission... Someday, it may make sense to combine them all into a unified best practices RFC which can be used to rule the galaxy^W^W^Wmake the internet a nicer place for everyone. But not be soo draconian that individuals can't see over the bar. -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Oracle Prophet / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | The past is the future \__/ | Nobody expects the spammish inquisition _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:49:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06650 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJn7B13267 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WiAd-0003Ru-UB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06640; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WiAc-0004tP-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WiAW-0004tM-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WiAW-0003LX-J2; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wi9n-0003Ge-M8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:48:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06630 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:47:59 -0400 (EDT) From: william@elan.net Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wi9X-0004sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:47:59 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wi9M-0004s3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:47:48 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h5THAZZK002758 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:10:36 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h5THAZhG002754 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:10:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) In-Reply-To: <20030629151131.GE15667@gamerz.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT) On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Richard Rognlie wrote: > RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has > nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the > hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote > MTA. > > IOW, If I connect to a remote MTA and my MTA sends the greeting > EHLO play.gamerz.net. That MTA can do a lookup of > my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.play.gamerz.net and see immediately > that if it gets my.ip.ad.dr as the response, that, indeed, I am > a DRIP subscribed host. If any other host attempts to connect > and claim to be play.gamerz.net, the IPs will not match (or there > will be no record at all). You can already do this by setting proper reverse dns ip for the record and reverse dns does allow for multipe names for the ip. So this is a a proposal that indends to allow equvalent of reverse dns check for when company running mail server does not have access to set reverse dns as it wishes. As such I'm a lot more afraid of this being used by spammers themselve when they are hijacking ip space, using proxies, dialup, etc. Many spammers do have domains they have no problem letting everybody else know about as part of EHLO, in the envelope from, etc - domains are cheap and entering bogus data there is easy - so they can afford to register one new domain for each dozen million emails sent (i.e. one or more new domain every day...). Long ago I also mentioned that good dns check/security model should not be tying authorization to direct dns alone but to direct dns AND reverse dns as well (so that we have two separate distinct authenticion paths and two sets of authorities to confirm your identity in a way - this will also stop spammers from being able to so easily get and use new virtual identites/domains. And yes, I know many do not like this because they run their mail servers on dsl, but in reality even for dsl, you should be able to get reverse dns set properly to your mail server even if you only have one ip ip (as long as its not dynamic). And going futher on this, I'v thought about it for a while actually and came to conclusion that reverse dns records should be used to authenticate servers (like now) but stronger authentication methhods should be used, I'd favor SSL certificates, self-signed and tied to special reverse dns record. And for those who can not control reverse dns a workaround can be provided by having well known certificate authority also sell similar certificates. I'll provide details on this and number of my other proposals some time in the future, when I think through research group is a little better organized... --- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 15:51:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06683 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TJp8C14016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WiCa-0003dz-Qc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06679; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WiCZ-0004vY-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WiCT-0004vV-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WiCU-0003Xf-58; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:51:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WiBe-0003So-6t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:50:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06666 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WiBI-0004u3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:48 -0400 Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WiB8-0004tA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:49:38 -0400 Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:35:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Paul Judge To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:35:49 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:12 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam > > > It seems to me that the members of the group > > 1. Network Abuse - some people including Barry Shain and Eric Brunner > specifically, have been proposing that we look at the entire > spam problem > as one of network abuse. The Internet in general, and SMTP in > particular, > have been built as open systems trusting all network users to behave > themselves. Spam is caused by those users abusing the network and its > resources. I, of course, encourage the generalization of the problem and also casting it into some framework. I agree that people are "looking at the spam problem from two different angles" but I do not think that necessarily means that the proposals fall into those three categories. The consent-based communication paradigm also looks at the spam problem as a large-scale networking problem. There are properties of the email system that spammers are exploiting; this causes a number of symptoms. Some members focus on the symtpom of network abuse (which is definitely a valid concern); however, it is already considered as part of the consent-based communication framework. To help clarify the difference between the vulnerabilites and symptoms that are a result of the exploit of these vulnerabilities, Liudvikas Bukys was working on an 'inventory of problems' document. > 2. Consent - these proposals do not try to block the email at > the sender's > end, or as at being transferred over the network. Instead, > they concentrate > solely at the receiver's point. This is not the case. It is most desirable to block unwanted traffic as close to the source as possible. There is some difficulty in moving the solution closer to the source in that you are enforcing a policy for all downstream receivers. Careful policy expression helps here. Overall, I think that consent-based communication as referred to in the charter includes what you have referred to here as 'consent' and 'network abuse' models. What I think you are touching on here with these two models is what I refer to as local vs global spam solutions. A local solution refers to controlling spam for some individual or organization. I also think of this as providing symptom relief rather than a real cure. This is commonly done today with anti-spam tools deployed at the desktop, server, or gateway. There are a number of commercial and non-commercial solutions that are quite effective at 'solving the problem' for local environments. While many individuals and organizations have deployed such solutions, the spam problem continues to exist globally. It is even suggested that these local solutions have increased the global problem since spammers are sending more. The solution to the global problem requires an understanding of the adversaries and their motivation. As many have suggested, controlling spam globally requires reversing the spammers profit model. What I suggest that is different is that this does not require directly associating a cost with sending email. Just as in any other business, the profit in spamming is equal to revenues minus costs. In spamming, revenue is equal to the number of spam messages received times the response rate times the profit per item. Expenses include the cost of obtaining the lists of email addresses and the cost of sending the messages. The difference between the amount of spam messages sent and the number received is a factor of the effectiveness and deployment rate of anti-spam technologies. User education is able to affect the response rate as well as the difficulty and costs of obtaining email addresses. Besides providing a strong deterrence, anti-spam legislation is able to introduce overhead in the form of the expenses of litigation. The consent-based communications paradigm considers this and directly affects both the number of spam messages sent and the number received. If you consider this along with the taxonomy that looked at spam prevention, spam detection and spam response approaches, then the relationship can be seen between the various anti-spam system proposals, the consent-based communications paradigm, and global and local spam solutions. With that said, I do agree that we need to further document this framework to provide a clearer view as we deal with this large number of individual proposals. It seems that without this clarity, many are having trouble putting everything in context. All, please share your thoughts on this view of the overall framework. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 18:05:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08803 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TM5JZ31643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WkIQ-0008EI-TT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08752; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WkIO-0006X7-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WkII-0006X4-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WkI9-0008CI-PD; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WkHN-00089j-K2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:04:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08653 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WkHK-0006W7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:04:10 -0400 Received: from giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([192.139.46.36] helo=mail.nitros9.org ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WkHA-0006Vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:04:00 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=giles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ident=aland) by mail.nitros9.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 19Wj8n-0002C2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:51:17 -0400 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:35:49 EDT." Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:51:17 -0400 Paul Judge wrote: > It is most desirable to block unwanted traffic as close to the > source as possible. There is some difficulty in moving the solution > closer to the source in that you are enforcing a policy for all > downstream receivers. Careful policy expression helps here. I've previously discussed pushing consent upstream, in: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00898.html while this works in theory, there are issues with implementation and use that will make it problematic. e.g. You tell your upstream provider to block an ip/mask because it's a spamhaus, and 3 months later when it's your buddy's company, your upstream provider is unwilling (or unable) to enfore your change of that consent. That is, consent-based systems should be fail-safe. This probably means that consent MUST be re-stated after some timeout, otherwise you will be deemed to implicitely consent to *all* traffic. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 19:01:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10415 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TN1GI06755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WlAa-0001ks-LI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10407; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WlAX-0007DB-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WlAR-0007D8-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WlAL-0001eX-Gz; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WlA4-0001bh-K8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:00:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10395 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WlA1-0007Cb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:00:41 -0400 Received: from bay8-f72.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.72] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wl9q-0007Bb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:00:30 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:59:40 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:59:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2003 22:59:40.0790 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F4EA160:01C33E92] Subject: [Asrg] Comments on The Ultimate Anti-Spam System Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:59:40 +0000 Hello Mr Wild, Thankyou for your comments. My responses are in the body of the message below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system. This can be viewed at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Anymore comments or suggestions, please feel free to post on them, Mark McCarron. >Subject: Comments on The Ultimate Anti-Spam System >Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:15:03 -0400 >From: asrg@wildm.com >Greetings Mark - Just a quick observation, and I may be incorrect in my >interpretation but I believe that you have the Client and Email Server >positions reversed in your Very Very Basic Overview and Basic Overview of >Anti-Spam System. The Client should be the endpoint in mail as I >understand >it. Mark's Response: In the very very basic overview the setup is correct. The email server depicted is just networked to the 'client' machine, which connects to the Internet. An email server, typically, does not connect directly to the Internet, but rather through a firewall system, which, would be installed on the client (in the depicted setup). Hope this clears that point for you. > >A second observation is that I, too, have some concerns about a global >authority that you consult with to decide whether you accept an email or >not. While I'm not quite as concerned as Kee Hinckley about a Fascist NGO >;) governing email there have been severe operational issues with bodies >such as these (to wit ICANN) This is not an issue that can be dismissed >with a hand wave. > Mark's Response: I too would have issues with a global authority, of any type, regulating the Internet. I can see clearly where you are coming from with this point. With any organisation, there is always going to be operational issues, especially when it comes to mission critical applications. The 'GIEIS' system will essentially be a public body, it will not be run by any form of company nor will any company have access to its systems. It will also be a non-profit organisation. It will have very strict guidelines on how the system is used and these guidelines will be drafted by Internet users, such as those posting to this group. It will be a very open organisation who's only agenda is to protect end users and businesses protected by the system. All investigations would be available to the public via the organisation's website, there will be no closed door policy. People concerned with privacy issues must remember that governments already routinely scan emails. If this was 'GIEIS' purpose, then it would be completely redundant. Also, it would not have the power to shut down a company 'at a whim', but rather only after every other resolution has been exhaustively attempted. This would be a last resort measure only used to protect people such as yourself and your children. I have seen children as young as 8 and 9 years old recieve emails with a picture of a woman doing something with a horse. How would you feel if this were your child? I just want to give the Internet back to families and encourage the global spread of one of the best inventions mankind has ever made. >Thirdly, this solution suffers from one of the greatest obstacles to a >solution and that is deployment on the tens of millions of mail servers >already in existence. I can see how this may not be as severe as it >appears >at first inspection as you are creating a new and separate channel from the >existing SMTP infrastructure. However its utility will be limited during >the initial stages just due to the limited number of participants. > Mark's Response: Agreed on completely. It will take time to move to the new system and will not be achieved over night. For the majority of end users, it will be a simple update to their existing email client. As time progresses all new versions will have this feature built in. The servers are going to be a different story, this will be a challange, however, this too can be in the form of a patch, a pretty big one I'll admit, but it would be comparable to downloading a new version of Internet Explorer. During the early stages of transition the 'GIEIS' central servers would not be operating. Instead, I believe the way that this should be done is what I have termed a 'D-Day'. That is, select a specific date from which the system will function from and set that as the deadline for compliance. We could say something like New year's day at the stroke of midnight of 2005 and all companies that wish to send mail to those domains protected under 'GIEIS' would need to be 'GIEIS Compliant' by that date. >I believe that you are traveling down the correct road. It is my sense >that >inflicting sender accountability is a good first step in solving or >reducing >the spam problem Identifying the bad actors is the first step in dealing >with their behavior. Mark's Response: I too feel that some form of centralisation is the only way we can protect users. Every other recommendation I have ever seen can be bypassed without to much difficulty. 'GIEIS' would be immediately be able to identify offenders an block based on account level rather than domain level. This would limit any impact that it would have on a company's business and help remove any concerns businesses would have about the system. Anymore comments or suggestions, please feel free to post on them, Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 19:31:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10890 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5TNVEA10653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wlda-0002lk-LD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10881; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WldZ-0007e5-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WldT-0007e2-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WldN-0002ic-FJ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wld1-0002hn-Kf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:30:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10848 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wld0-0007dP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:30:38 -0400 Received: from bay8-f27.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.27] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wlcp-0007cC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:30:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:29:37 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:29:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Fearghas McKay - What's your point?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2003 23:29:37.0536 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E405000:01C33E96] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:29:37 +0000 Fearghas, I fail to see your point. So, I used to work for MSN UK and I also happen to be an trained accountant. Is this illegal or something??? I am also the author behind the Epsilon Theory and I was part of a 20 strong advisory board which also included the head of physics with 'Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences'. Numerous scientists have wanted to put the Epsilon Theory to the test because it is grounded in well established science. You really missed a whole lot about me, for starters, I'm a genius. That's not an exaggeration, but just a statement of fact, there are other people like me too. I do Egyptology, mathematical investigations, RF and Microwave communications, Lazer communications, electronic engineering, network engineering, database engineering, programming, web development, accountancy, e-business management, marketing... I could go on all night if you want me to. I still completely fail to see your point?? Oh, I get it, you don't grasp how cellular structures or DNA can be stimulated using controlled ionised radiation in an electromagnetic field. Sorry, forgot not everyone has the same IQ level as me. Maybe you should try reading Harry Potter for a while. Mark McCarron. At 21:46 +0000 28/6/03, Mark McCarron wrote: >Mark's Response: > >You don't know I am a mathematician and a trained UK accountant as well. >So, I will not be harsh on you :) Productivity costs, refers to increased >wage/production payments. This is an expense, a VERY real cash-flow, I can >assure you. The same goes for lost business opportunities, this is source >of capital, another VERY real cash-flow. Their reference to $12 Billion is >therefore, extremely literal. These costs are not spread across millions >of >people, no one has the time to do research like that. Quotes like that are >often solely based upon the Fortune 500 companies. Those who are not on the RIPE Anti-SPAM WG mailing list will have missed this introduction that Mark made there: --==-- I fully understand that this mailing list is non-technical, however, maybe some of you know people who develop these systems and can pass it along. I have been reading the open letter regarding spam by Bill Gates. I used to work for MSN UK as technical support and I addressed this issue with them in 1997/1998. At that stage MSN's email servers were open to the world, although filters were in place, I found that I could send spam without to many problems. I have considered this problem extensivly for the last 5 or 6 years and have developed a solution. This solution is highly cost-effective and eliminates challange-response systems. --==-- To call a RIPE list non-technical is interesting however a quick google search also shows up: >"And Mark McCarron, an associate and advisory board member of >The Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association, wrote a research >article called "The Epsilon Theory." Mark calls it "Wild Speculation." >Nevertheless, he may have discovered how to regenerate living tissue! >The article may be viewed in the Development section of his website, >The Case for the Giza Necropolis Primer, at: > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/index.html He also claimed on the RIPE list that he has approached 500 ISPs and within a day 90% said that they would deploy his proposed system. He was unfortunatly unable to provide us with any names or references. In short I would suggest that we do not feed the troll. Cheers _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 20:34:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11756 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5U0YEv19156 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WmcY-0004yt-LT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11747; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WmcW-0000kZ-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WmcQ-0000kW-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WmcK-0004wY-S1; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:34:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WmbT-0004vt-Vv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:33:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11726 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WmbC-0000ix-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:32:50 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wmb1-0000hh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:32:40 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A535188800F2; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:32:53 -1000 Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:37:00 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consent Proposal thread-index: AcM+bhxR9R8DMfCFTpOje+Fiex4XZQAMLLqA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:32:48 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, I'm with you on this. Can you share w/ the group what his "framework definition" should look like so that those of us interested in assisting can, in fact, assist? > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com]=20 > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:37 AM > To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >=20 >=20 > At 09:19 PM 6/27/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >=20 > >Yakov, > > > >I'll summarize my response based on your points and questions below: > > > >What I'm talking about is that our consent framework define a very,=20 > >very general set of standards such that: > > > >1. vendors can develop an anti-spam software module based on=20 > whatever=20 > >they think is a good idea. > > > >2. this module can be installed/plugged in/inserted/etc such that it=20 > >will apply to either the MUA or MTA, depending on how it was=20 > intended. > > > >3. each module can interoperate with both the framework (of=20 > course) and=20 > >each other. This would allow modules to be installed in "series" or=20 > >possibly "parallel" so that several different modules can be=20 > stacked to=20 > >provide a powerful anti-spam technology. > > > >4. The modules can be controlled by a hierarchical organization=20 > >starting w/ the ISP at the highest level, then cascading to=20 > the domain,=20 > >then the end user. >=20 > All correct, >=20 > >If we think this is a good idea, then we can take all the different=20 > >specific anti-spam approaches that have been proposed so far and go=20 > >back and forth between thinking up the framework and thinking up the=20 > >modifications that would be required to the existing proposed=20 > >technologies. >=20 > Yes that is what I am trying to accomplish. >=20 > >The framework would primarily define the "bus" or the basic way that=20 > >data would be passed from one module to another both for the MTA and=20 > >MUA perspective. The analogy here is we create a "PCI bus"=20 > designed to=20 > >allow end-users to control email that gets to their inbox and we let=20 > >customer need and market forces to create the specific "PCI=20 > Cards" that=20 > >get plugged into a given email infrastructure. >=20 > I don't know if there would be a "bus" of some sort, more=20 > likely a few=20 > interacting protocols like CRI. >=20 > >Does this make sense or am I completely way off in=20 > understanding what=20 > >we're talking about when we say framework? > > > >Peter Kay > >President > >TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com > >The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > > > > > > > > >I think you've got the beginning of a consent-based > > > framework. I like > > > >it. What I'm getting out of this is: > > > > > > > >A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on=20 > MUA or MTA=20 > > > >(ISP). > > > > > > Plug-in is not the correct word here, we are seeking to create a=20 > > > general framework with details left for specific implementations. > > > > > > >B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition, > > > related to > > > >the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR=20 > to all the=20 > > > >other methods mentioned below. > > > > > > Each implementation/ > > > > > > >C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting > > > w/ the ISP > > > >(for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate=20 > > > >applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on > > > varying levels > > > >of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP=20 > > > >whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to > > > blacklist it. > > > > > > Are you suggesting that the various implementations=20 > should be able=20 > > > to interoperate? This can be done by defining interoperability=20 > > > protocols like the CRI protocol for C/R systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > >To me, this reinforces what I've seen over the past few > > > months on this > > > >group: > > > > > > > >1. no one can agree what spam is. So at the end of the day, the=20 > > > >user has to have the power to decide. This is in line w/ the=20 > > > >charter. > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > >2. no one technological approach "religion" (i.e. filtering, > > > C/R, etc) > > > >is adequate to deal with the general problem of "unwanted email". > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > >3. spammers will change their methods as time goes on, so the=20 > > > >architecture must allow for that. > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > > > > >In addition, a consent-based framework allows for multiple > > > vendors to > > > >participate. If we can create some sort of "email bus" I > > > think it has a > > > >lot of potential. > > > > > > An email bus? Can you explain this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM > > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for > > > consent-based system > > > > > as per > > > > > charter: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 > filter incoming=20 > > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, > > > and are not > > > > > mandated. > > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 > from banning=20 > > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a > > > > > whitelist of trusted > > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of > > > > > unknown senders. > > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to > > > > > the bulk folder, > > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or > > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses > > > > > of trusted senders, > > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features > > > > > such as digital > > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such > > > > > email from > > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the > > > > > inbox unless > > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon > > > > > receiving a > > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as > > > > > email coming > > > > > from known open relays is blocked. > > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or > > > > > encrypted to > > > > > protect privacy. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Asrg mailing list > > > > > Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Asrg mailing list > > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Asrg mailing list > >Asrg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 21:23:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12442 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5U1NGj26930 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WnO0-00070G-JA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12432; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WnNx-0001SC-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WnNs-0001S4-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WnNl-0006ts-Ce; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WnN4-0006rv-O2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:22:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12423 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WnMn-0001R7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:22:01 -0400 Received: from bay8-f9.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.9] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WnMc-0001QC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:21:50 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:20:55 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:20:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 01:20:55.0511 (UTC) FILETIME=[DAA26E70:01C33EA5] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:20:55 +0000 Yakov, This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about spam and that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the Internet by it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own mail servers. Can you clear any of these problems up? Mark McCarron. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM > > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for > > > consent-based system > > > > > as per > > > > > charter: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >filter incoming=20 > > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, > > > and are not > > > > > mandated. > > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >from banning=20 > > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a > > > > > whitelist of trusted > > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of > > > > > unknown senders. > > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to > > > > > the bulk folder, > > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or > > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses > > > > > of trusted senders, > > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features > > > > > such as digital > > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such > > > > > email from > > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the > > > > > inbox unless > > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon > > > > > receiving a > > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as > > > > > email coming > > > > > from known open relays is blocked. > > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or > > > > > encrypted to > > > > > protect privacy. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Yakov _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jun 29 22:44:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15054 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5U2iHq06785 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WoeP-0001lM-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15011; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WoeL-0002cV-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WoeG-0002cS-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Woe9-0001jJ-NQ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wodq-0001j3-My for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:43:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14983 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wodn-0002bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:43:39 -0400 Received: from 000-235-185.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.157.236] helo=68.27.157.236) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wodb-0002aq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:43:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629224237.00b9be68@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:42:38 -0400 First of all take a look a the group's charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states we are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in all the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was put forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in general and the consent framework in particular. Yakov At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >Yakov, > >This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the current one >employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in eliminating spam, the end >user still recieves it and has to deal with it. Also, it does not address >the main issue about spam and that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed >across the Internet by it. All this seems to do is sort it at the >recieving end. > >I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from the >server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. > >It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own mail >servers. >Can you clear any of these problems up? > >Mark McCarron. > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >> > > consent-based system >> > > > > as per >> > > > > charter: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>filter incoming=20 >> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >> > > and are not >> > > > > mandated. >> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>from banning=20 >> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >> > > > > whitelist of trusted >> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >> > > > > unknown senders. >> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to >> > > > > the bulk folder, >> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses >> > > > > of trusted senders, >> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features >> > > > > such as digital >> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such >> > > > > email from >> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the >> > > > > inbox unless >> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon >> > > > > receiving a >> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as >> > > > > email coming >> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or >> > > > > encrypted to >> > > > > protect privacy. >> > > > > >> > > > > Any thoughts? >> > > > > >> > > > > Yakov > >_________________________________________________________________ >Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 00:11:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16793 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5U4AJZ18406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wpzf-0004mn-Ax for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16766; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wpzc-0003Au-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19WpzX-0003Ar-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WpzN-0004jU-H4; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:10:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wpz6-0004j0-Qo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:09:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA16747 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wpyp-0003AO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:09:27 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wpye-00039v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:09:16 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (americasm01.nt.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h5U483022038; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id NLV6J1DS; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:08:03 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (abrwt1yp.ca.nortel.com [47.9.22.184]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N7Z5M47A; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:08:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3EFFB868.3040307@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] SMTP server connections that disconnect right away References: <3EFBB41A.9040202@privacynetworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627151955.00bb9668@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141354.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:11:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > At 09:02 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Chris Lewis wrote: >> Repeating exactly the same test 20,000+ times in a day? >> I don't think so. > I meant the spammers - perhaps the spammers are checking different > servers whether they implement RMX. Checking the same server 20,000+ times in a day? I don't think so. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 01:57:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19642 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5U5vJT02303 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19WrfD-0000b4-45 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19620; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wrf9-0003lk-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wrf4-0003le-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wrev-0000Xq-JO; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wre7-0000WY-HN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:56:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19574 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wrdp-0003lI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:55:53 -0400 Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wrde-0003l8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:55:42 -0400 Message-Id: To: william@elan.net, asrg@ietf.org From: Scott Nelson Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:55:42 -0700 At 10:10 AM 6/29/03 -0700, william@elan.net wrote: [edited] >On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Richard Rognlie wrote: > >> RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has >> nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the >> hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote >> MTA. >> >> IOW, If I connect to a remote MTA and my MTA sends the greeting >> EHLO play.gamerz.net. That MTA can do a lookup of >> my_ip_ad_dr._relays_._email_.play.gamerz.net and see immediately >> that if it gets my.ip.ad.dr as the response, that, indeed, I am >> a DRIP subscribed host. If any other host attempts to connect >> and claim to be play.gamerz.net, the IPs will not match (or there >> will be no record at all). > >You can already do this by setting proper reverse dns ip for the record >and reverse dns does allow for multipe names for the ip. So this is a >a proposal that indends to allow equvalent of reverse dns check for >when company running mail server does not have access to set reverse >dns as it wishes. > That's not /entirely/ correct. There's a way to do more than one reverse rDNS, but it isn't generally practiced, and there's no way to deal with a machine that has more than about 40 domains associated because of the 512 byte packet size limit in DNS. (Yes, there's a way to send packets that are bigger, but that's even more broken.) I suspect though, it would be easier to standardize a way to handle that case, than get DMP/RMX/DRIP accepted. (And yes, there are lots of IPs on the internet right now that handle more domains than fit in a single packet.) To illustrate another problem with multiple rDNS records, consider the following hypothetical; I run a mail server on my IP and it lists 10 rDNS records. one is "mx35.yahoo.com" and the other nine are domains that point to my IP. That IP sends you an email that claims to be from yahoo.com. Do you mark it as a probably forgery? What about email that claims to be from loser@pacbell.net and originates from adsl-10-10-10-10.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net? These problems are not insurmountable, but they are problems. a good rDNS implementation would need to deal with them, and to do that means changes. [...] > >And going futher on this, I'v thought about it for a while actually and >came to conclusion that reverse dns records should be used to authenticate >servers (like now) but stronger authentication methhods should be used, >I'd favor SSL certificates, self-signed and tied to special reverse dns >record. And for those who can not control reverse dns a workaround can be >provided by having well known certificate authority also sell similar >certificates. I'll provide details on this and number of my other proposals >some time in the future, when I think through research group is a little >better organized... > Why rDNS? If you insist on digital signatures, then it shouldn't be necessary to examine the transport layer /at all/. Scott Nelson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 02:23:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02303 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5U6NGm17068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ws4K-0004RD-ED for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02245; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ws4G-0003st-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ws4B-0003sq-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ws45-0004O7-3e; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Ws3n-0004LY-3W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:22:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02166 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:22:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ws3U-0003sL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:22:24 -0400 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ws3J-0003rM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:22:13 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip129-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.129]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7769D36C55 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:20:18 -0400 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Proposal: Separate ISP(s) for "guaranteed delivery" of email Message-ID: <20030630022018.A2266@m433> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626003053.00baa618@solidmatrix.com> <20030627222558.A2360@m433> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629011233.00b33578@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629011233.00b33578@std5.imagineis.com>; from research@solidmatrix.com on Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -0400 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:20:18 -0400 On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > I haven't specified the exact mechanism for separation between > >"personal email" and "business email". It'll probably be separate > >domains and/or IP addresses. > > Well if personal accounts can have read-only access, then you can just > route business email to their personal boxes which would remain the same. The business account will be guaranteed delivery. The user's home account, will be standard, not so reliable, delivery. Again, let me emphasize that the business ISP will follow the Fedex/Purolator/UPS model. Too expensive for everyday use for every piece of mail, but the right solution when the sender is willing to pay a bit of money to ensure that a file gets delivered. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 08:50:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19816 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UCnhH22004 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:49:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wy6I-0005ip-Uk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:49:42 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19765; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wy5d-0005aM-5X; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:49:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Wy4J-0005Yi-6i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:48:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19530 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wy4H-0007OY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:47:37 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Wy46-0007NF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:47:27 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.verisign.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.9/) with ESMTP id h5UCkM2Q017652; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.verisign.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:46:22 -0700 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D22B0@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] fwd (nanog) Over three million computers 0wned? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:46:21 -0700 > > On the other hand, Information Risk Management questioned how any one > person could "own" hundreds of computers at any one time. > And systems are > often not "owned" by a single group, but exploited by multiple groups Read 'Honeypots' by Spitzer which describes the honeynet project. It is not unusual for a hacker to own hundreds of computers. There are some hacker groups that require members to own thousands of machines as a condition for entry. The attack tools are automated. An owned machine can be used as a platform to launch new attacks. Some of the hard core criminal spam scams originate from clusters of hacked machines. This is how some identity theft spams are sent. The two currencies of the hacking world are stolen credit card numbers and owned machines. Both are considered fungible commodities. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 11:56:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02631 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:56:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UFtxx28001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X10Z-0007HU-Bz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02598; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X10S-00029u-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:52 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X10H-00029o-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X0zd-00071k-TB; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X0yb-0006r2-BC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02225 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X0pl-00020K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:44:49 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X0pU-0001zw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:44:33 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630114256.00b5b2a8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Peter Kay" , From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:43:40 -0400 I will be writing up something this week and will post it to the list, so we can start working on defining this. At 02:32 PM 6/29/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >OK, I'm with you on this. Can you share w/ the group what his "framework >definition" should look like so that those of us interested in assisting >can, in fact, assist? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:37 AM > > To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > > > > > At 09:19 PM 6/27/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > > > >Yakov, > > > > > >I'll summarize my response based on your points and questions below: > > > > > >What I'm talking about is that our consent framework define a very, > > >very general set of standards such that: > > > > > >1. vendors can develop an anti-spam software module based on > > whatever > > >they think is a good idea. > > > > > >2. this module can be installed/plugged in/inserted/etc such that it > > >will apply to either the MUA or MTA, depending on how it was > > intended. > > > > > >3. each module can interoperate with both the framework (of > > course) and > > >each other. This would allow modules to be installed in "series" or > > >possibly "parallel" so that several different modules can be > > stacked to > > >provide a powerful anti-spam technology. > > > > > >4. The modules can be controlled by a hierarchical organization > > >starting w/ the ISP at the highest level, then cascading to > > the domain, > > >then the end user. > > > > All correct, > > > > >If we think this is a good idea, then we can take all the different > > >specific anti-spam approaches that have been proposed so far and go > > >back and forth between thinking up the framework and thinking up the > > >modifications that would be required to the existing proposed > > >technologies. > > > > Yes that is what I am trying to accomplish. > > > > >The framework would primarily define the "bus" or the basic way that > > >data would be passed from one module to another both for the MTA and > > >MUA perspective. The analogy here is we create a "PCI bus" > > designed to > > >allow end-users to control email that gets to their inbox and we let > > >customer need and market forces to create the specific "PCI > > Cards" that > > >get plugged into a given email infrastructure. > > > > I don't know if there would be a "bus" of some sort, more > > likely a few > > interacting protocols like CRI. > > > > >Does this make sense or am I completely way off in > > understanding what > > >we're talking about when we say framework? > > > > > >Peter Kay > > >President > > >TitanKey Software Web: www.titankey.com > > >The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it's even sent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think you've got the beginning of a consent-based > > > > framework. I like > > > > >it. What I'm getting out of this is: > > > > > > > > > >A. there exists a plug-in infrastructure that can run on > > MUA or MTA > > > > >(ISP). > > > > > > > > Plug-in is not the correct word here, we are seeking to create a > > > > general framework with details left for specific implementations. > > > > > > > > >B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy definition, > > > > related to > > > > >the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR > > to all the > > > > >other methods mentioned below. > > > > > > > > Each implementation/ > > > > > > > > >C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting > > > > w/ the ISP > > > > >(for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate > > > > >applications0 and then the end-user. We can decide on > > > > varying levels > > > > >of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP > > > > >whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to > > > > blacklist it. > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that the various implementations > > should be able > > > > to interoperate? This can be done by defining interoperability > > > > protocols like the CRI protocol for C/R systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To me, this reinforces what I've seen over the past few > > > > months on this > > > > >group: > > > > > > > > > >1. no one can agree what spam is. So at the end of the day, the > > > > >user has to have the power to decide. This is in line w/ the > > > > >charter. > > > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > > > >2. no one technological approach "religion" (i.e. filtering, > > > > C/R, etc) > > > > >is adequate to deal with the general problem of "unwanted email". > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > >3. spammers will change their methods as time goes on, so the > > > > >architecture must allow for that. > > > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > > > > > > > >In addition, a consent-based framework allows for multiple > > > > vendors to > > > > >participate. If we can create some sort of "email bus" I > > > > think it has a > > > > >lot of potential. > > > > > > > > An email bus? Can you explain this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM > > > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for > > > > consent-based system > > > > > > as per > > > > > > charter: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to > > filter incoming > > > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, > > > > and are not > > > > > > mandated. > > > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging > > from banning > > > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. > > > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a > > > > > > whitelist of trusted > > > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of > > > > > > unknown senders. > > > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to > > > > > > the bulk folder, > > > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or > > > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses > > > > > > of trusted senders, > > > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features > > > > > > such as digital > > > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. > > > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such > > > > > > email from > > > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the > > > > > > inbox unless > > > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon > > > > > > receiving a > > > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. > > > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as > > > > > > email coming > > > > > > from known open relays is blocked. > > > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or > > > > > > encrypted to > > > > > > protect privacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Asrg mailing list > > > > > > Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >Asrg mailing list > > > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Asrg mailing list > > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Asrg mailing list > > >Asrg@ietf.org > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 12:10:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03320 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UG9ZL01125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:09:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1Dj-0000I4-J0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:09:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03290; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1DB-0000BB-3P; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1CH-00005A-Ry for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:08:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03195 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:07:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X18L-0002Dk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:04:01 -0400 Received: from vmmrnat.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.187] helo=vmmr7.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X186-0002CC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:03:46 -0400 Received: from ms3.verisignmail.com (ms3.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.176] (may be forged)) by vmmr7.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id OXS18270; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOBDEV (pool-162-83-223-223.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.83.223.223]) by ms3.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AJT28642; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:00:02 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Bob Wyman" To: "'Jean-Christophe Bandini'" Cc: "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability Message-ID: <002c01c33f20$aa7fc730$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <3EFE261A.8000805@tumbleweed.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:00:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jean-Christophe Bandini wrote: > then whitelist become _more_ expensive to maintain than=20 > blacklist because as you said above there are 'massively=20 > more non-spammer than spammer' The relative expense depends on whether you are speaking globally or locally. While there are many more non-spammer servers than spammer's servers, for many receivers of email, they are exposed to more spammer servers than non-spam servers. The number of non-spam servers is limited to some number equal to or less than the number of correspondents that the user has. The number of spam servers, however, is typically very large for any user who receives spam. Thus, one can argue that at the individual level, maintaining whitelists is much cheaper than maintaining blacklists. On a more global level, it is clear that maintaining whitelists is going to be more expensive. An ISP or listing service needs to be able whitelist *all* of the unique machines that are on the aggregated whitelists of all the individual users. In that case, the number of whitelisted machines will probably greatly exceed the number of blacklisted machines. So, yes, at the "global" level, whitelists would be larger than blacklists, however, at a "local", individual user leve, the whitelists would probably be smaller than the blacklists. bob wyman _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 12:41:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05133 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UGfIO09366 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1iQ-0002Qs-0F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05096; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1iN-0002Wt-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:15 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1iI-0002Wq-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1i9-0002Mh-UI; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1hT-0002LN-7n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:40:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05021 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:40:00 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1gM-0002Vy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:39:10 -0400 Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1gB-0002Vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:38:59 -0400 Received: (cpmta 13803 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2003 09:12:09 -0700 Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 30 Jun 2003 09:12:09 -0700 X-Sent: 30 Jun 2003 16:12:09 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:11:46 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:40:28 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Consent proposal Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:40:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ...This can be considered a consent-based concept, as it can be a parameter at the ISP end for each mail user. It adds quite a bit of overhead to the mail server as it requires two additional messages for each one sent. I see it being part of the MTA process. I send a message to someone. The MTA replies to the message with a "proof of sender request, " basically a specially formatted email message that goes back to the server that sent it based on the return address. The idea sounds promising other than that initial, perhaps-not-quite-fatally-flawed premise. You've fallen into a big trap that confuses many folks... folks who don't realize that SMTP mail servers and POP3 mail servers represent in fact two quite different entities (despite the fact that SMTP servers at some point talk to POP3 servers). Specifically, at the sender's send, the SMTP and POP3 mail servers are not only not (usually) the same program, they are *quite* often not on the same machine (and moreover, may not even be under the ownership of the same company!). Thus, if a recipient MTA sends a message back "based on the return address" it will go to the sender's POP3 server, which is VERY likely *not* going to be "the server that sent" the original outgoing SMTP message. For one example, let's take a look at the (rather convoluted) path that my E-mail messages go through: 1) I'm composing my messages here within my home LAN, behind a NAT router and cable modem. My return address is my own domain, terabites.com. My E-mail leaves my mail client and is passed in turn through my EMWAC SMTP server running on a NT 4.0 server box. That passes it upstream through my WinProxy proxy server (running on a Win2K server box) which then goes out through my firewall, through the NAT router to the cable modem, and goes (obligatorially) to AT&T broadband (becoming Comcast's) outgoing SMTP server. Note that many ISPs require that ALL outgoing mail from their users go through their SMTP servers, and do not allow downstream nodes to connect to off-net SMTP servers. 2) AT&T's SMTP server delivers the message to the recipient's indicated domain, which might (or might not!) be the actual recipient's POP3 server. Let's consider my own case, though, where the mail will be delivered to my personal domain provider (terabites.com). NOTE THAT IT HERE IS SERVING AS RECIPIENT, NOT AS A SENDER! 3) My domain provider's MTA forwards the incoming mail as requested to gordonepeterson2 at attbi.com. 4) AT&T Broadband's (recently acquired by Comcast) mail server forwards my mail (starting today, in fact) to Comcast's new mail server at mail.comcast.net. This is the POP3 mail queue where I will (starting today) go to fetch my incoming messages. Okay, so now this server at mail.comcast.net sends a request to gep2@terabites.com's MTA requesting confirmation that it originated the message in question. It clearly did not... it was an intermediate point. So who, anyhow, was actually the "originating" mail server, and how would one get back to it? Let's say that Domain Direct (my domain provider) just forwards the 'confirmation request' on, like it forwards the rest of my mail. So it forwards the mail on through to gordonepeterson2 at attbi.com, which dutifully (starting today) forwards it on through to gordonepeterson2 at comcast.net. Comcast's mail server, of course, has never seen the message I originally sent, so it can't confirm that it sent the original message. Now in fact, attbi's server (NOT mail.attbi.com, but smtp.attbi.com) IS the mail server that (as far as the Net at large is concerned) "originated" the message, although it probably wouldn't have any way to notice that (and certainly not based on my gep2@terabites.com E-mail address). And then there are my proxy server and the REAL originating SMTP mail server at nts1.terabites.com, although it's behind a NAT router so nobody outside my local LAN can even get to that (TRUE originating) SMTP server at its non-routable IP address. Let's take a look at another interesting variant on this, and that's Yahoogroups (specfically, but other mailing lists have similar issues): So anyhow, the first step above is the same, then my post goes to (say) mailinglist@yahoogroups.com which forwards it on to the recipients of that mailing list. Let's take the example for now of where the messages are delivered individually to list subscribers. The mail has the "from" and "replyto" addresses of either (at the list moderator's option) mailinglist@yahoogroups.com or gep2@terabites.com. Sending a confirmation request to gep2@terabites.com as the originator takes us back through the earlier situation, with the difficulties now compounded by the fact that (1) the message subject now has a (by default) [mailinglistname] prefixed to it, and that (2) NONE of the mail servers in the path we followed together above shows the message I originally sent going to listmember@hisisp.com. The "originator" in that case is actually of course the Yahoogroups (or other mailing list) server, although it's not guaranteed that any of the "return address" items in the group will point back to it. (Mailing list owners can usually specify whether they want replies to go by default to the originators of the message in question, versus to the list). Now, one COULD imagine a scheme whereby a sender's outgoing mail could contain some kind of new header line which specified that a (and which) mail server was prepared to take responsibility for sending the message in question... but if it's not "the mail server" (whatever THAT actually means) corresponding to the sender's E-mail (presumably return) address, then it's not clear that you've gained a whole lot... since a spammer could say "here, use THIS server for confirmations!" and point at a bogus "spammer server" which simply confirms ALL requests in the affirmative. But even disregarding that problem, a more basic issue with this whole avenue of thinking is that it has to be handled by basically the whole Net before it can be useful... it's not a scheme (as mine is) which can be implemented incrementally, starting with as little as one single POP3 server. > The sender's MTA responds with a "confirmation request" if it did send the message and the message is now available for download based on moving it from the pending directory to a user directory. If there is no response within a certain period the message is discarded. It's a similar concept that I use when I get a telemarketer who I may want to pursue what they are selling. I ask for their phone number and call then back. Granted I don't do this very often as I usually tell them to take me off their call list and hang up. If this has been mentioned I apologize as the volume of messages is quite large on this list. > In terms of Yakovs' consent based system: I like the idea of an ISP form that allows me to check boxes to deny HTML or non-signed messages. I think it has to be more than that, because I'm willing to (grudgingly) accept HTML from a few senders who (1) I feel are justified in using HTML, and (2) I trust to not abuse the power it gives them. What I think is CRUCIAL is to allow me to specify the addressee/sender address pair for which I give permission to send me HTML-burdened E-mails (and/or attachments and/or base64 encoded bodies or whatever). Here again there is the Yahoogroups mailing lists issue. I have all of my Yahoogroups mailing lists set to send me only plain ASCII text, so those should get to me regardless of whether I list those groups as "trusted senders" or not. Note that even if the Yahoogroups list is set to leave the mail with the original real sender's E-mail as the From: address, since Yahoogroups is sending only plain ASCII text, it should come through fine. > And probably enter a few basic filters like deny any message that mentions Viagra. One problem there is that there are so many ways of obscuring the content. For instance, spammers commonly will use V I A G R A or V1AGRA or VIAGRA or some such to try to defeat content scanners. So filters need to end up being a lot more than just "basic" if they're going to be effective. A simple grep-type search is nowhere near adequate. (I *will* claim however that messages which by default are not allowed to contain HTML, attachments, or printable or other encoding deny to spammers a large percentage of the potential types of deceits and deceptions they can use to defeat content scanners. Hence, I think that preventing untrusted senders from sending HTML-burdened messages by default is one MAJOR step that we NEED to employ to stem the crushing tidal wave of spam!). My personal content filtering here is based on SNOBOL4/SPITBOL, whose pattern matching is far more powerful (AND faster!) than the braindead regex-based pattern matching offered in Perl, which is what most (other!) people have attempted to use for such content filters so far. Another fairly obvious problem is that the message YOU just sent (which I'm responding to) would be filtered out by a filter triggered by the word "Viagra" in the E-mail message (and my just RE-mentioning it would make THIS one even more likely, perhaps, to be t-canned). Those are issues of content filters in general, but regardless of the technology these are hugely simplified if they don't have to deal with HTML, scripting, and attachments. > Also you could determine what lists to use to deny or accept messages. I prefer not to filter messages on my machine, but I don't see the typical ISP processing all these rules and filters without a substantial increase in cost of doing business. That's true, but perhaps not to the degree you'd indicate. Remember that there are costs to passing along the tidal wave of spam, too... it might be that it costs less to truncate it earlier. Processing power really is pretty cheap (and getting cheaper all the time) so adding even quite a bit of power for filtering doesn't have to really be very expensive (especially compared to the cost of bandwidth to receive and send on the messages to begin with). > So I think having something at both ends makes sense in the short term. Certainly the really FINE-grained filtering should probably be done at the recipient end (and giving them the opportunity for "one last ditch effort" to filter out some of the residual spam which evaded the various filters higher up the chain. > The long term it should be an issue for the MTA to manage based on some parameters that the user or ISP set. That would be NICE but in the end, I think that final control of each user's inbox belongs with the user. > I like the idea of a white list that is supported by some industry entity like the DMA. I don't necessarily think that they're going to like a technique that's as restrictive as the users probably want. > But I also like the way I can put my phone number in the DMA's database and all those marketers who subscribe to their service won't call me. If enough of the public do that, the DMA's list will incorporate most of the phone numbers in the USA and marketers simply won't join or subscribe to DMA's service. That's why such lists must be maintained by the government instead, and then we just all hope and pray that big-political-contributor companies don't manage to subvert the will of the people (more than they already have). :-(( > The bottom line is that consent should be easy for the general user to deal with and understand. On THAT part we're definitely on the same page. How about something like: mail to gep2@terabites.com default allow plain ASCII from cluelessaunt@aol.com allow HTML only safe allow attachments only (JPG,DOC) from friend@china.net allow encoding including (base64,printable) from george@arthurandersen.com allow attachments including (XLS) from internalsupport@mycompany.com allow HTML including (scripting,Javascript) allow attachments including executable from md5hash(reallysensitive@secretisp.gov) allow attachments including (JPG,ZIP,PGP) allow encoding including (base64) from sailboatphotos@yahoogroups.com allow attachments only (JPG,DOC) from statements@mybank.com allow HTML from susanprogrammer@trustedcompany.com allow attachments including executable from tom@adagency.com allow attachments including (TTF,GIF,DOC,PPT) from trustedfriendtom@hisisp.com allow attachments allow HTML mail to gep2hobby@somdomain.com from sailboats@yahoogroups.com allow attachments only (JPG,GIF) mail to gep2bot@otherdomain.com from senderbot@somecompany.com allow attachments only (ZIP) from otherbot@othercompany.com allow attachments only (XML,ZIP) Initially, this permissions list could be simply edited, although longer-term it probably should be manipulated by incremental add/update through some kind of menu system, Web page, or maybe E-mailed commands. A good implementation would probably maintain at least two copies of the list, one a local copy on the user's own machine (just for a safeguard backup copy) and the other at the user's ISP or domain provider (wherever the filtering is going to be done). If one wanted to use hashing or something (I've hinted at that ability above) there are a variety of things that might be implemented there (again, we don't need worldwide consensus for any of my proposals, since they're basically single-ended and only involve the recipient user and their ISP or domain provider). Presumably hashing or encryption would be done, if done at all, in whatever way would provide adequate security and not revealing secret information to those who shouldn't have it (and don't have it anyhow). Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 12:50:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05727 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UGoEu11810 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1r4-00034P-At for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05679; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1r1-0002dg-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1qw-0002dd-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1qr-0002xm-NE; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1qJ-0002ws-IE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:49:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05627 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1q2-0002ck-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:49:10 -0400 Received: from 226.48.93.66.in-addr.rsbx.net ([66.93.48.226] helo=mail.rsbx.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1pr-0002ZF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:48:59 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10511 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:44:01 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0068D1.F7C32EF9@rsbx.net> From: Raymond S Brand X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17.crypt i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) References: <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:44:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please do NOT copy me when sending to the ASRG list. The big difference is what is verified. DRIP verifies that the DOMAIN used in the HELO/EHLO command is permitted from the client IP address; RMX verifies that the DOMAIN used in the envelope is permitted from the client IP address. DRIP is more about reducing the amount of spewed payload from virus infected systems than anything else. DRIP and RMX compatible in that both can be used together. Raymond S Brand Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > At 01:21 PM 6/28/2003 -0400, Raymond S Brand wrote: > > >The June 24 DRIP document has a problem with the use of DNS > >wildcard records. Attached is an updated DRIP document and > >a diff of the important changes between the two documents. > >[..] > > > > The Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol, DRIP, is a method for domain > > name owners to specify the IP addresses that are authorized to relay > > mail as a domain name in the SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. The > > protocol provides a method for server MTAs to reject SMTP connections > > from IP addresses not authorized to use the domain name given in the > > SMTP HELO and EHLO commands. > >[..] > > How is this proposal different from RMX proposal by Hadmut Danisch > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt) and > the various other rDNS proposals (see Mike Rubel's page at > http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 12:52:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05862 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UGq9Y12857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1sv-0003LI-GJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05820; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1ss-0002f9-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1sn-0002f6-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1sn-0003Ey-5n; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X1s1-0003EF-Gb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:51:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05782 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:51:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1rz-0002eb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:51:11 -0400 Received: from 226.48.93.66.in-addr.rsbx.net ([66.93.48.226] helo=mail.rsbx.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X1ro-0002eQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:51:00 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10533 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3F006A6E.E2270DB@rsbx.net> From: Raymond S Brand X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17.crypt i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151605.00b414f8@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:50:54 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please do NOT copy me on mail sent to the ASRG list. Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > At 11:11 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > ... > > > >RMX (et al) deal with the envelope from address. This proposal has > >nothing to do with the envelope. It is an attempt to sanitize the > >hostname specified as the HELO/EHLO when connecting to a remote > >MTA. > >[..] > > Dealing with the return envelope has its own problems (DSN messages with > empty MAIL FROM <>) so it seems that dealing with the HELO/EHLO is better. > BUT, the bottom line is that both proposals are DNS based and propose > additional DNS records. Whether the filtering is done on HELO/EHLO level or > return envelope is something to be left to the implementators. Both > proposals are basically the same - they are mandating DNS records. Both proposals require a database where domain name owners can declare which IP addresses may use the domain name and how those IPs may use it; DNS is a natural choice here. Raymond S Brand _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 13:01:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06318 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UH1PU14694 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X21t-0003ov-5x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06294; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X21q-0002kf-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X21l-0002kc-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X21V-0003lV-Q7; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X219-0003hU-4S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:00:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06263 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X216-0002jo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:00:36 -0400 Received: from 226.48.93.66.in-addr.rsbx.net ([66.93.48.226] helo=mail.rsbx.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X20v-0002jh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:00:25 -0400 Received: from rsbx.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rsbx.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10582 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:00:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3F006CA3.DF5D53D0@rsbx.net> From: Raymond S Brand X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17.crypt i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Designated Relays Inquiry Protocol (DRIP) References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <3EFD0298.9856371D@rsbx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629145134.00bb1cf0@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030629151317.00b3c458@std5.imagineis.com> <20030629152142.GH15667@gamerz.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:00:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please do NOT copy me on mail sent to the ASRG list. Richard Rognlie wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 03:15:26PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > At 11:11 AM 6/29/2003 -0400, Richard Rognlie wrote: > > ... > > > > Dealing with the return envelope has its own problems (DSN messages with > > empty MAIL FROM <>) so it seems that dealing with the HELO/EHLO is better. > > BUT, the bottom line is that both proposals are DNS based and propose > > additional DNS records. Whether the filtering is done on HELO/EHLO level or > > return envelope is something to be left to the implementators. Both > > proposals are basically the same - they are mandating DNS records. > > Just additional records. Not any additional record types. > And as such, we are not at the mercy of waiting for any particular > flavor of BIND to work its way out into the mainstream. In comparison to RMX, the records required by DRIP are in the zones that the domain name owners administrate (or pay someone to administrate); whereas, the records required by RMX are in the in-addr.arpa, or IPv6 equivalent, which is usually administered by some other entity. RMX query result can be huge; DRIP query results are small (singe A record). > FWIW, this is part 1 of 2 proposals. Ray (and his hearty band of cohorts) > will be working on the 2nd part [formalizing it] soon. It will be > working on the validity of the headers (not the env-from, but the > *whole* bunch of headers). but I'll leave it's discussion to him. Actually, it validates the envelope from also. BTW, Richard is one of the cohorts. Raymond S Brand _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 13:18:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06879 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UHI9O18208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X2I5-0004jb-HY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06826; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X2I2-0002rt-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X2Hx-0002rq-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X2Hx-0004eg-49; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X2H7-0004cq-Oe for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:17:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06793 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X2H5-0002r6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:17:07 -0400 Received: from bay8-f14.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.14] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X2Gu-0002qS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:16:56 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:14:14 -0700 Received: from 62.252.224.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:14:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.224.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 17:14:14.0333 (UTC) FILETIME=[07CA06D0:01C33F2B] Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - Overview to be released in next few hours Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:14:13 +0000 A more in-depth overview of the 'GIEIS' system will be released within the next few hours. This overview has taken into account the comments and suggestions of all posters and will provide a clearer overview of the system. This overview will also be posted to this mailing list and at the website: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis Please let me know what you think of this new overview and the new suggestions that appear within it. Examine the proposal extremely carefully, as it is very detailed. I look forward to your feedback. Mark McCarron. _________________________________________________________________ Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:00:19 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08676 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:00:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UHxpf26136 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:59:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X2wR-0006nT-IG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:59:51 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08645; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X2vc-0006lC-Kk; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X2uh-0006hu-C4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08577 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X2ue-00039c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:58:00 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X2uO-00039H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:57:45 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630135426.00b34f90@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400 At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation to the >group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so. > >Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span >solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam System' >may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate description of the system. There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol (http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol (http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at this list message (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html) that lists objection to new systems. >Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near >impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the >overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to the >mailing group. > >I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet solution. I am >not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly far from impossible. We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with short, medium and long term solutions. >This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along side >the current one. It will replace it completely making it entirely redundant. However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular SMTP. Thus, its alternative. >The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006 (I'll >clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago). >This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be >implemented at this stage also. IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter Dnes's proposal and many others have accounted to backwards compatibility, you have not yet as seen from this quote: "What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send spam or even an email from an older server? The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'." >Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users would >know if they sent this volume of email and the system would have >information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked. This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >Mark McCarron. > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" >>Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400 >> >>The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework. >>Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into this >>framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions. >> >>As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not write or >>distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial considerations" >>here. I also do not like the name calling between different group members >>- it causes a feeling of discord. Additionally, calling your system "the >>ultimate anti spam system" is a bit too much for most members to handle. >>I would like to see everyone to stay away from name calling while keeping >>in mind that this is a technical list. >> >>As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are >>proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of the >>current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by Walter Dnes >>except that his system does not rely on cryptographic methods (see >>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html). >>The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that >>everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem with >>Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are >>essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a >>tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates potential >>for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a big problem >>as well since no one would want to use an alternative system unless many >>people will switch over to it and many people will not switch to it until >>others use it. If you look through the mailing list archive somewhere >>there is a list of requirements by Eric Williams. I asked him to email me >>the most recent copy which I will forward to you. Among those >>requirements, deployment and inter-operability rank pretty high up. >> >>It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut down on >>spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. But as I >>mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS systems based on >>email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how pervasive existing >>standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has mentioned many times >>before, much of spam is being sent via hacked computers. Even with your >>rate limits in place, spammers can probably be able to coordinate many >>hacked computers to send spam from legit GEIS/EAS senders. >> >>Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the group >>members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic silver bullet >>that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination of various solutions >>and proposals will start cutting into the spam flow until it stops. >> >>Yakov >> >>P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent me was >>not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is correct because >>I would rather have discussions in public so we can get comments from >>other people. >> >>At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >> >>>Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly >>>defined. I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, >>>local and global. >>>The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't seen >>>anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam. >>>The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of consent and >>>its application would be global. It forces the erasure/stoppage of all >>>fraudulent email but also allows the end-user the whitelist options. >>> >>>There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been >>>compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly address all >>>concerns. >>>Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a >>>centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The more I >>>post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become, concerns >>>have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those advocating >>>'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect financial considerations. >>> >>>'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all >>>fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others? >>> >>>I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the system. It >>>is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have 30 pages of >>>comments alone to address, however, all the comments have a resolution >>>within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete accurate proposal of >>>the system in the next few days once I have compiled all the information >>>together. It will refer to both local, global, consent and forced issues. >>> >>>Mark McCarron. >>> >>> >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,research@solidmatrix.com >>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400 >>>> >>>>Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this >>>>subject >>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html). >>>>The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to >>>>end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated >>>>specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off. >>>> >>>>Yakov >>>> >>>>At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>> >>>>>This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been able >>>>>to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned? >>>>> >>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>>First of all take a look a the group's charter >>>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states we >>>>>>are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in all the >>>>>>different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was put forth to >>>>>>solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in general and the >>>>>>consent framework in particular. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yakov >>>>>> >>>>>>At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Yakov, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in eliminating >>>>>>>spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal with it. Also, >>>>>>>it does not address the main issue about spam and that is the >>>>>>>roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the Internet by it. All this >>>>>>>seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from the >>>>>>>server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own >>>>>>>mail servers. >>>>>>>Can you clear any of these problems up? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>>>>>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >>>>>>>> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >>>>>>>> > > consent-based system >>>>>>>> > > > > as per >>>>>>>> > > > > charter: >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>>>>>>>filter incoming=20 >>>>>>>> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >>>>>>>> > > and are not >>>>>>>> > > > > mandated. >>>>>>>> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>>>>>>>from banning=20 >>>>>>>> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >>>>>>>> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >>>>>>>> > > > > whitelist of trusted >>>>>>>> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >>>>>>>> > > > > unknown senders. >>>>>>>> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to >>>>>>>> > > > > the bulk folder, >>>>>>>> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >>>>>>>> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses >>>>>>>> > > > > of trusted senders, >>>>>>>> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features >>>>>>>> > > > > such as digital >>>>>>>> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >>>>>>>> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such >>>>>>>> > > > > email from >>>>>>>> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the >>>>>>>> > > > > inbox unless >>>>>>>> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon >>>>>>>> > > > > receiving a >>>>>>>> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >>>>>>>> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as >>>>>>>> > > > > email coming >>>>>>>> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >>>>>>>> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or >>>>>>>> > > > > encrypted to >>>>>>>> > > > > protect privacy. >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > Any thoughts? >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > Yakov > >_________________________________________________________________ >It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:25:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09596 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIPHE31011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3L3-000846-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09577; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Kz-0003JO-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Ku-0003JL-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Kn-000822-Jq; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Jy-0007yM-7X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09546 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Ju-0003Il-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:06 -0400 Received: from bay2-f51.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.51] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Jk-0003IS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:56 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:22:57 -0700 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:22:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] A simpleton's view of ASRG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 18:22:57.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[A198F0B0:01C33F34] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:22:57 -0200 Mike Wild wrote: ...... >low several thousands mailboxes. As several people have pointed out the >margins in the ISP business are *EXTREMELY* low leaving precious little >excess resource to deal with what I find an alarming and intractable >problem that threatens our business. I am *NOT* a Unix (Linux actually) >guru, simply a frustrated and >overworked computer professional attempting to deal with an *VERY* >resistant problem. Well, I'll worked with Unix for 18 years and still feel much the same. Spam is a work related stress hazard, as well as an economic problem ;-). ......... >I do have to agree with his assertion that SMTP is fundamentally flawed in >its current incarnation. Many legitimately useful features used by >innocent parties are also abused by the spammers to deliver their crap. >This, IMHO, is the core of the problem. Folks don't want to give up the >flawed features Agree, we that operate mail don't want to do dramatic changes to the infrastructure we have, much because the reasons you gave first, time and money. And, it does not matter if we are a ISP, as you or someone at a company, as me, the problem is the same, though the definition of spam might be different. Therefore we must look at spam not as primarily a technical problem, but a sociological and economical problem, someone earning on breaking the courtesy rules and this one will continue, until the basis for this behavior, the income, trickle away. >I have read some interesting proposals (RMX and Greylisting spring >immediately to mind) which is why I am still subscribed to the list. One >thing that I have found somewhat alarming in some of the proposals is the >amount of "state information" required to be maintained on the mail >servers. >An example of this would be the triples (sender/receiver/transmitting IP >address) though I find this state information to be less troublesome as it ........ What we have seen, is that many of these schemes also can be deceived, by using real accounts. Spam control can in the long run not be fought by fighting it's shadows (possible patterns, IP-nos and such), one have to fight the tangible, as if the sending mail server is who it says it is, what info in the spam that really can be validated and that the spammer can't cover up, because then he/she does not get their share of the economics if they do. Remove the money and only the destructive spammers are left. With time, if the users follow our instructions of not posting their home address on web pages or Netnews, addresses gets unvalid and also these will go away. The first goal of spam control must be to stop the ca +200 spammers, that Spamhaus lists as the core, rend their spams inoperative, because then their customers go away. You simply don't buy ad's that don't work. No-one can affort that today. ......... >anti-spam solution. The most important requirement is that the solution is >effective in the SMTP phase. Once my server has received the /n./n it has >committed considerable resource to attempt to deliver that message. The >second most important requirement is that the solution makes the >accept/reject decision based on firm, indisputable criteria...ie this >server >*IS* who it says it is, this sender can receive the bounce should the >message prove undeliverable...basically the sending machine does not have >to SMTP is something we will live with, it is like VHS, somewhat deficient, but does it job good enough. It is against human nature to change stuff that work, if it does not hinder to many users. Mail users do not associate spam with SMTP, because they do not know what SMTP is, therefore no demands for a change. "My outlook/Eudora/Lotus Notes/Pegasus/what ever shall work" (remember also, the mailer has a smtp session). A change need that the SMTP is redefined and implemented under normal support, not a big bang. RMX might be simpler, but still a lot of organizations will not dare to change, since they know what they have, but not what they got. >I apologize for the length of this post Not needed, it tells the reality, often is forgotten in technical discussions. ............... >capable and more intelligent members of the list with an idea of the >requirements/desires of administrators that cannot or will not "roll their >own" solution. As a final thought we did actually consider stopping doing >email altogether. Solving or, at least, reducing the spam problem to a >nuisance level has become a "revenge thing" for me, for better or worse. I ............... If the list learn to close the lid on the technicalities for some time and start looking at the requirements and revisits the problem at hand again, the chance exist. If we don't neglect the driving force and the real size of the main problem, the secondary problems might be easier to solve, without copyrighted or patented solutions. Do we have a possibility of matching spams to a certain spammer (statistical), so we can understand his/her business, then we can look for options to stop that. Some spammers do take credit to having neutralizing new antispam methods within an hour or so. Well, then we do look at the wrong info to stop them. Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:26:36 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09640 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIQ8K31345 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Ls-00089U-OE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09619; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Lp-0003Jz-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Lj-0003Jw-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Lm-00086J-5v; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3LA-00085d-9D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09585 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3L7-0003JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:21 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Ks-0003J8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:25:07 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142433.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:48 -0400 >From: "Mark McCarron" >To: research@solidmatrix.com >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:21:09 +0000 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 18:21:10.0073 (UTC) >FILETIME=[615B5290:01C33F34] > > > >The 'GIEIS' system is not designed to be backwards compatible. There is >no possible way for any solution to arise using the current system. If it >could be achieved it would have happened by now. > >I am completely unconcerned with objections. As I said before, I not >designing a system to win a 'popularity' contest. I am concerned with >only one thing, complete effectiveness. Nothing else. > >I looked at the systems you from the links you provided. They can all be >bypassed without too much effort. > >It will not be an alternative, the system will not be active until the >patner companies are ready. Then it will become exclusive. > >I read mike's proposal, its slightly different from my system. You will >understand this within the next hour or so. > >Mark McCarron. > > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400 >> >>At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >> >>>Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation to >>>the group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so. >>> >>>Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span >>>solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam System' >>>may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate description of the system. >> >>There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying >>infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter >>Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol >>(http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol >>(http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at this >>list message >>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html) >>that lists objection to new systems. >> >>>Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near >>>impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the >>>overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to the >>>mailing group. >>> >>>I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet solution. I >>>am not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly far from impossible. >> >>We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly >>reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such >>change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our >>goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with >>short, medium and long term solutions. >> >>>This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along side >>>the current one. It will replace it completely making it entirely redundant. >> >>However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular >>SMTP. Thus, its alternative. >> >>>The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006 >>>(I'll clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago). >>>This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be >>>implemented at this stage also. >> >>IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter Dnes's >>proposal and many others have accounted to backwards compatibility, you >>have not yet as seen from this quote: >> >>"What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send >>spam or even an email from an older server? >>The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'." >> >>>Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users >>>would know if they sent this volume of email and the system would have >>>information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked. >> >>This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel >>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >> >>>Mark McCarron. >>> >>> >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400 >>>> >>>>The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework. >>>>Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into >>>>this framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions. >>>> >>>>As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not write >>>>or distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial >>>>considerations" here. I also do not like the name calling between >>>>different group members - it causes a feeling of discord. Additionally, >>>>calling your system "the ultimate anti spam system" is a bit too much >>>>for most members to handle. I would like to see everyone to stay away >>>>from name calling while keeping in mind that this is a technical list. >>>> >>>>As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are >>>>proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of the >>>>current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by Walter >>>>Dnes except that his system does not rely on cryptographic methods (see >>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html). >>>>The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that >>>>everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem with >>>>Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are >>>>essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a >>>>tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates >>>>potential for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a >>>>big problem as well since no one would want to use an alternative >>>>system unless many people will switch over to it and many people will >>>>not switch to it until others use it. If you look through the mailing >>>>list archive somewhere there is a list of requirements by Eric >>>>Williams. I asked him to email me the most recent copy which I will >>>>forward to you. Among those requirements, deployment and >>>>inter-operability rank pretty high up. >>>> >>>>It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut down >>>>on spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. But as I >>>>mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS systems based on >>>>email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how pervasive existing >>>>standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has mentioned many times >>>>before, much of spam is being sent via hacked computers. Even with your >>>>rate limits in place, spammers can probably be able to coordinate many >>>>hacked computers to send spam from legit GEIS/EAS senders. >>>> >>>>Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the >>>>group members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic silver >>>>bullet that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination of various >>>>solutions and proposals will start cutting into the spam flow until it stops. >>>> >>>>Yakov >>>> >>>>P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent me >>>>was not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is correct >>>>because I would rather have discussions in public so we can get >>>>comments from other people. >>>> >>>>At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>> >>>>>Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly defined. >>>>>I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, local and >>>>>global. >>>>>The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't >>>>>seen anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam. >>>>>The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of consent >>>>>and its application would be global. It forces the erasure/stoppage >>>>>of all fraudulent email but also allows the end-user the whitelist options. >>>>> >>>>>There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been >>>>>compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly address >>>>>all concerns. >>>>>Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a >>>>>centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The more I >>>>>post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become, concerns >>>>>have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those advocating >>>>>'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect financial considerations. >>>>> >>>>>'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all >>>>>fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others? >>>>> >>>>>I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the >>>>>system. It is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have >>>>>30 pages of comments alone to address, however, all the comments have >>>>>a resolution within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete >>>>>accurate proposal of the system in the next few days once I have >>>>>compiled all the information together. It will refer to both local, >>>>>global, consent and forced issues. >>>>> >>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>,research@solidmatrix.com >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>>Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this >>>>>>subject >>>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html). >>>>>>The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to >>>>>>end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated >>>>>>specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yakov >>>>>> >>>>>>At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been >>>>>>>able to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First of all take a look a the group's charter >>>>>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states we >>>>>>>>are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in all >>>>>>>>the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was put >>>>>>>>forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in >>>>>>>>general and the consent framework in particular. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yakov, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in >>>>>>>>>eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal >>>>>>>>>with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about spam and >>>>>>>>>that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the Internet by >>>>>>>>>it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from >>>>>>>>>the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own >>>>>>>>>mail servers. >>>>>>>>>Can you clear any of these problems up? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >>>>>>>>>> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >>>>>>>>>> > > consent-based system >>>>>>>>>> > > > > as per >>>>>>>>>> > > > > charter: >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>>>>>>>>>filter incoming=20 >>>>>>>>>> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >>>>>>>>>> > > and are not >>>>>>>>>> > > > > mandated. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>>>>>>>>>from banning=20 >>>>>>>>>> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >>>>>>>>>> > > > > whitelist of trusted >>>>>>>>>> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >>>>>>>>>> > > > > unknown senders. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to >>>>>>>>>> > > > > the bulk folder, >>>>>>>>>> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >>>>>>>>>> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses >>>>>>>>>> > > > > of trusted senders, >>>>>>>>>> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features >>>>>>>>>> > > > > such as digital >>>>>>>>>> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such >>>>>>>>>> > > > > email from >>>>>>>>>> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the >>>>>>>>>> > > > > inbox unless >>>>>>>>>> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon >>>>>>>>>> > > > > receiving a >>>>>>>>>> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as >>>>>>>>>> > > > > email coming >>>>>>>>>> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or >>>>>>>>>> > > > > encrypted to >>>>>>>>>> > > > > protect privacy. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Any thoughts? >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Yakov >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >>>http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > >_________________________________________________________________ >Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:29:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09786 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIT8Q32580 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:29:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Ol-0008TP-Vr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:29:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09771; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Oi-0003M8-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:29:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Oc-0003M5-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:28:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Of-0008N0-Bi; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:29:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3O8-0008Lh-BU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:28:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09738 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3O5-0003Ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:28:25 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Nn-0003LM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:28:08 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142516.00b9f118@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:28 -0400 This raises an interesting issue for the group in general. If the current spam problem is not fixed, would there be a move to proprietary alternative email solutions such as this one? Yakov At 06:21 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, you wrote: >The 'GIEIS' system is not designed to be backwards compatible. There is >no possible way for any solution to arise using the current system. If it >could be achieved it would have happened by now. > >I am completely unconcerned with objections. As I said before, I not >designing a system to win a 'popularity' contest. I am concerned with >only one thing, complete effectiveness. Nothing else. > >I looked at the systems you from the links you provided. They can all be >bypassed without too much effort. > >It will not be an alternative, the system will not be active until the >patner companies are ready. Then it will become exclusive. > >I read mike's proposal, its slightly different from my system. You will >understand this within the next hour or so. > >Mark McCarron. > > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400 >> >>At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >> >>>Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation to >>>the group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so. >>> >>>Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span >>>solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam System' >>>may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate description of the system. >> >>There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying >>infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter >>Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol >>(http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol >>(http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at this >>list message >>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html) >>that lists objection to new systems. >> >>>Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near >>>impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the >>>overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to the >>>mailing group. >>> >>>I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet solution. I >>>am not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly far from impossible. >> >>We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly >>reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such >>change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our >>goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with >>short, medium and long term solutions. >> >>>This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along side >>>the current one. It will replace it completely making it entirely redundant. >> >>However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular >>SMTP. Thus, its alternative. >> >>>The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006 >>>(I'll clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago). >>>This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be >>>implemented at this stage also. >> >>IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter Dnes's >>proposal and many others have accounted to backwards compatibility, you >>have not yet as seen from this quote: >> >>"What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send >>spam or even an email from an older server? >>The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'." >> >>>Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users >>>would know if they sent this volume of email and the system would have >>>information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked. >> >>This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel >>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >> >>>Mark McCarron. >>> >>> >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400 >>>> >>>>The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework. >>>>Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into >>>>this framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions. >>>> >>>>As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not write >>>>or distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial >>>>considerations" here. I also do not like the name calling between >>>>different group members - it causes a feeling of discord. Additionally, >>>>calling your system "the ultimate anti spam system" is a bit too much >>>>for most members to handle. I would like to see everyone to stay away >>>>from name calling while keeping in mind that this is a technical list. >>>> >>>>As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are >>>>proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of the >>>>current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by Walter >>>>Dnes except that his system does not rely on cryptographic methods (see >>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html). >>>>The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that >>>>everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem with >>>>Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are >>>>essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a >>>>tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates >>>>potential for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a >>>>big problem as well since no one would want to use an alternative >>>>system unless many people will switch over to it and many people will >>>>not switch to it until others use it. If you look through the mailing >>>>list archive somewhere there is a list of requirements by Eric >>>>Williams. I asked him to email me the most recent copy which I will >>>>forward to you. Among those requirements, deployment and >>>>inter-operability rank pretty high up. >>>> >>>>It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut down >>>>on spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. But as I >>>>mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS systems based on >>>>email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how pervasive existing >>>>standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has mentioned many times >>>>before, much of spam is being sent via hacked computers. Even with your >>>>rate limits in place, spammers can probably be able to coordinate many >>>>hacked computers to send spam from legit GEIS/EAS senders. >>>> >>>>Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the >>>>group members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic silver >>>>bullet that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination of various >>>>solutions and proposals will start cutting into the spam flow until it stops. >>>> >>>>Yakov >>>> >>>>P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent me >>>>was not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is correct >>>>because I would rather have discussions in public so we can get >>>>comments from other people. >>>> >>>>At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>> >>>>>Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly defined. >>>>>I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, local and >>>>>global. >>>>>The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't >>>>>seen anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam. >>>>>The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of consent >>>>>and its application would be global. It forces the erasure/stoppage >>>>>of all fraudulent email but also allows the end-user the whitelist options. >>>>> >>>>>There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been >>>>>compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly address >>>>>all concerns. >>>>>Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a >>>>>centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The more I >>>>>post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become, concerns >>>>>have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those advocating >>>>>'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect financial considerations. >>>>> >>>>>'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all >>>>>fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others? >>>>> >>>>>I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the >>>>>system. It is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have >>>>>30 pages of comments alone to address, however, all the comments have >>>>>a resolution within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete >>>>>accurate proposal of the system in the next few days once I have >>>>>compiled all the information together. It will refer to both local, >>>>>global, consent and forced issues. >>>>> >>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>,research@solidmatrix.com >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>>Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this >>>>>>subject >>>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html). >>>>>>The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to >>>>>>end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated >>>>>>specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yakov >>>>>> >>>>>>At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been >>>>>>>able to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First of all take a look a the group's charter >>>>>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states we >>>>>>>>are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in all >>>>>>>>the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was put >>>>>>>>forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in >>>>>>>>general and the consent framework in particular. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yakov, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in >>>>>>>>>eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal >>>>>>>>>with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about spam and >>>>>>>>>that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the Internet by >>>>>>>>>it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from >>>>>>>>>the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own >>>>>>>>>mail servers. >>>>>>>>>Can you clear any of these problems up? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >>>>>>>>>> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >>>>>>>>>> > > consent-based system >>>>>>>>>> > > > > as per >>>>>>>>>> > > > > charter: >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>>>>>>>>>filter incoming=20 >>>>>>>>>> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >>>>>>>>>> > > and are not >>>>>>>>>> > > > > mandated. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>>>>>>>>>from banning=20 >>>>>>>>>> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >>>>>>>>>> > > > > whitelist of trusted >>>>>>>>>> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >>>>>>>>>> > > > > unknown senders. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to >>>>>>>>>> > > > > the bulk folder, >>>>>>>>>> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >>>>>>>>>> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email addresses >>>>>>>>>> > > > > of trusted senders, >>>>>>>>>> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features >>>>>>>>>> > > > > such as digital >>>>>>>>>> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such >>>>>>>>>> > > > > email from >>>>>>>>>> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the >>>>>>>>>> > > > > inbox unless >>>>>>>>>> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon >>>>>>>>>> > > > > receiving a >>>>>>>>>> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as >>>>>>>>>> > > > > email coming >>>>>>>>>> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored hashed or >>>>>>>>>> > > > > encrypted to >>>>>>>>>> > > > > protect privacy. >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Any thoughts? >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Yakov >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >>>http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > >_________________________________________________________________ >Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:33:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09983 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIX9Q01108 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Sf-0000Hn-Oa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09940; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Sb-0003O0-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3SW-0003Nx-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3SW-0000ET-QD; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:33:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3S6-0000Ag-O7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:32:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09921 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3S3-0003Nf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:32:31 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Rj-0003NO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:32:12 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142856.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Mark McCarron" , asrg@ietf.org, "Paul Judge" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142433.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:31:44 -0400 >>From: "Mark McCarron" >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:21:09 +0000 >> >>The 'GIEIS' system is not designed to be backwards compatible. There is >>no possible way for any solution to arise using the current system. If >>it could be achieved it would have happened by now. >> >>I am completely unconcerned with objections. As I said before, I not >>designing a system to win a 'popularity' contest. I am concerned with >>only one thing, complete effectiveness. Nothing else. Then why are you participating in the group? If you are not here to ask for our opinions, why waste our time and effort on this? This group is intended for people to discuss the spam issue and get opinions, comments, and objections, so the kinks in different proposals can be worked out before they are implemented. >>I looked at the systems you from the links you provided. They can all be >>bypassed without too much effort. >> >>It will not be an alternative, the system will not be active until the >>patner companies are ready. Then it will become exclusive. Can you name a few partners? >>I read mike's proposal, its slightly different from my system. You will >>understand this within the next hour or so. >> >>Mark McCarron. >> >> >> >>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400 >>> >>>At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>> >>>>Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation to >>>>the group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so. >>>> >>>>Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span >>>>solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam System' >>>>may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate description of the system. >>> >>>There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying >>>infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter >>>Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol >>>(http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol >>>(http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at this >>>list message >>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html) >>>that lists objection to new systems. >>> >>>>Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near >>>>impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the >>>>overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to the >>>>mailing group. >>>> >>>>I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet solution. I >>>>am not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly far from impossible. >>> >>>We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly >>>reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such >>>change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our >>>goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with >>>short, medium and long term solutions. >>> >>>>This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along >>>>side the current one. It will replace it completely making it entirely >>>>redundant. >>> >>>However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular >>>SMTP. Thus, its alternative. >>> >>>>The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006 >>>>(I'll clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago). >>>>This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be >>>>implemented at this stage also. >>> >>>IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter Dnes's >>>proposal and many others have accounted to backwards compatibility, you >>>have not yet as seen from this quote: >>> >>>"What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send >>>spam or even an email from an older server? >>>The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'." >>> >>>>Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users >>>>would know if they sent this volume of email and the system would have >>>>information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked. >>> >>>This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel >>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >>> >>>>Mark McCarron. >>>> >>>> >>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400 >>>>> >>>>>The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework. >>>>>Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into >>>>>this framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions. >>>>> >>>>>As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not write >>>>>or distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial >>>>>considerations" here. I also do not like the name calling between >>>>>different group members - it causes a feeling of discord. >>>>>Additionally, calling your system "the ultimate anti spam system" is a >>>>>bit too much for most members to handle. I would like to see everyone >>>>>to stay away from name calling while keeping in mind that this is a >>>>>technical list. >>>>> >>>>>As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are >>>>>proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of the >>>>>current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by Walter >>>>>Dnes except that his system does not rely on cryptographic methods >>>>>(see >>>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html). >>>>>The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that >>>>>everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem with >>>>>Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are >>>>>essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a >>>>>tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates >>>>>potential for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a >>>>>big problem as well since no one would want to use an alternative >>>>>system unless many people will switch over to it and many people will >>>>>not switch to it until others use it. If you look through the mailing >>>>>list archive somewhere there is a list of requirements by Eric >>>>>Williams. I asked him to email me the most recent copy which I will >>>>>forward to you. Among those requirements, deployment and >>>>>inter-operability rank pretty high up. >>>>> >>>>>It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut down >>>>>on spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. But as I >>>>>mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS systems based >>>>>on email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how pervasive >>>>>existing standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has mentioned >>>>>many times before, much of spam is being sent via hacked computers. >>>>>Even with your rate limits in place, spammers can probably be able to >>>>>coordinate many hacked computers to send spam from legit GEIS/EAS senders. >>>>> >>>>>Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the >>>>>group members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic silver >>>>>bullet that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination of various >>>>>solutions and proposals will start cutting into the spam flow until it stops. >>>>> >>>>>Yakov >>>>> >>>>>P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent me >>>>>was not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is correct >>>>>because I would rather have discussions in public so we can get >>>>>comments from other people. >>>>> >>>>>At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly defined. >>>>>>I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, local and >>>>>>global. >>>>>>The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't >>>>>>seen anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam. >>>>>>The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of consent >>>>>>and its application would be global. It forces the erasure/stoppage >>>>>>of all fraudulent email but also allows the end-user the whitelist options. >>>>>> >>>>>>There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been >>>>>>compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly address >>>>>>all concerns. >>>>>>Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a >>>>>>centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The more >>>>>>I post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become, >>>>>>concerns have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those >>>>>>advocating 'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect financial >>>>>>considerations. >>>>>> >>>>>>'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all >>>>>>fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others? >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the >>>>>>system. It is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have >>>>>>30 pages of comments alone to address, however, all the comments have >>>>>>a resolution within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete >>>>>>accurate proposal of the system in the next few days once I have >>>>>>compiled all the information together. It will refer to both local, >>>>>>global, consent and forced issues. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>>,research@solidmatrix.com >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this >>>>>>>subject >>>>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html). >>>>>>>The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to >>>>>>>end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated >>>>>>>specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been >>>>>>>>able to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>First of all take a look a the group's charter >>>>>>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states we >>>>>>>>>are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in all >>>>>>>>>the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was put >>>>>>>>>forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in >>>>>>>>>general and the consent framework in particular. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yakov, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in >>>>>>>>>>eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal >>>>>>>>>>with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about spam and >>>>>>>>>>that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the Internet >>>>>>>>>>by it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from >>>>>>>>>>the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their own >>>>>>>>>>mail servers. >>>>>>>>>>Can you clear any of these problems up? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >>>>>>>>>>> > > consent-based system >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > as per >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > charter: >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>>>>>>>>>>filter incoming=20 >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >>>>>>>>>>> > > and are not >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > mandated. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>>>>>>>>>>from banning=20 >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > whitelist of trusted >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > unknown senders. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > the bulk folder, >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email >>>>>>>>>>> addresses >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > of trusted senders, >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > such as digital >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as such >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email from >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > inbox unless >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > receiving a >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined such as >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email coming >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored >>>>>>>>>>> hashed or >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > encrypted to >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > protect privacy. >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Any thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Yakov >>>> >>>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>>It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >>>>http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:36:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10116 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIaEA01749 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Ve-0000S8-9R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10094; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Va-0003Oy-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3VV-0003Ov-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3VR-0000Oh-RU; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3Un-0000OE-0W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:35:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10064 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3Uj-0003Og-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:35:17 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3UR-0003OU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:35:01 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630143431.00b9f118@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:34:37 -0400 >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.200.188] >X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] >From: "Mark McCarron" >To: research@solidmatrix.com >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:33:33 +0000 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 18:33:34.0102 (UTC) >FILETIME=[1CD52360:01C33F36] > > >I believe the answer is yes. I just used a calculator at Paul Judge's >website and I put in the values of 1000 employees with an average salary >of $15,000 and recieving 20 spam messages a day. It calculated that it >would cost the business $31,250 per year. > >The issue is not going to come down to end-users, but business >losses. Add to this the financial damage caused by virus', worm's, >trojans and hoax emails this cost just skyrockets per annum. The future >is only set to get worse, especially with more eastern block countries >expanding their networks without the proper legal frameworks. > >Mark McCarron. > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:28 -0400 >> >>This raises an interesting issue for the group in general. If the current >>spam problem is not fixed, would there be a move to proprietary >>alternative email solutions such as this one? >> >>Yakov >> >>At 06:21 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, you wrote: >> >> >>>The 'GIEIS' system is not designed to be backwards compatible. There is >>>no possible way for any solution to arise using the current system. If >>>it could be achieved it would have happened by now. >>> >>>I am completely unconcerned with objections. As I said before, I not >>>designing a system to win a 'popularity' contest. I am concerned with >>>only one thing, complete effectiveness. Nothing else. >>> >>>I looked at the systems you from the links you provided. They can all >>>be bypassed without too much effort. >>> >>>It will not be an alternative, the system will not be active until the >>>patner companies are ready. Then it will become exclusive. >>> >>>I read mike's proposal, its slightly different from my system. You will >>>understand this within the next hour or so. >>> >>>Mark McCarron. >>> >>> >>> >>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400 >>>> >>>>At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation to >>>>>the group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so. >>>>> >>>>>Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span >>>>>solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam >>>>>System' may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate description >>>>>of the system. >>>> >>>>There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying >>>>infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter >>>>Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol >>>>(http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol >>>>(http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at >>>>this list message >>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html) >>>>that lists objection to new systems. >>>> >>>>>Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near >>>>>impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the >>>>>overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to >>>>>the mailing group. >>>>> >>>>>I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet >>>>>solution. I am not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly >>>>>far from impossible. >>>> >>>>We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly >>>>reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such >>>>change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our >>>>goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with >>>>short, medium and long term solutions. >>>> >>>>>This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along >>>>>side the current one. It will replace it completely making it >>>>>entirely redundant. >>>> >>>>However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular >>>>SMTP. Thus, its alternative. >>>> >>>>>The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006 >>>>>(I'll clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago). >>>>>This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be >>>>>implemented at this stage also. >>>> >>>>IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter >>>>Dnes's proposal and many others have accounted to backwards >>>>compatibility, you have not yet as seen from this quote: >>>> >>>>"What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send >>>>spam or even an email from an older server? >>>>The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'." >>>> >>>>>Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users >>>>>would know if they sent this volume of email and the system would have >>>>>information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked. >>>> >>>>This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel >>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >>>> >>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>>The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework. >>>>>>Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into >>>>>>this framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions. >>>>>> >>>>>>As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not write >>>>>>or distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial >>>>>>considerations" here. I also do not like the name calling between >>>>>>different group members - it causes a feeling of discord. >>>>>>Additionally, calling your system "the ultimate anti spam system" is >>>>>>a bit too much for most members to handle. I would like to see >>>>>>everyone to stay away from name calling while keeping in mind that >>>>>>this is a technical list. >>>>>> >>>>>>As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are >>>>>>proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of >>>>>>the current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by >>>>>>Walter Dnes except that his system does not rely on cryptographic >>>>>>methods (see >>>>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html). >>>>>>The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that >>>>>>everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem >>>>>>with Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are >>>>>>essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a >>>>>>tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates >>>>>>potential for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is >>>>>>a big problem as well since no one would want to use an alternative >>>>>>system unless many people will switch over to it and many people will >>>>>>not switch to it until others use it. If you look through the mailing >>>>>>list archive somewhere there is a list of requirements by Eric >>>>>>Williams. I asked him to email me the most recent copy which I will >>>>>>forward to you. Among those requirements, deployment and >>>>>>inter-operability rank pretty high up. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut down >>>>>>on spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. But as I >>>>>>mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS systems based >>>>>>on email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how pervasive >>>>>>existing standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has mentioned >>>>>>many times before, much of spam is being sent via hacked computers. >>>>>>Even with your rate limits in place, spammers can probably be able to >>>>>>coordinate many hacked computers to send spam from legit GEIS/EAS senders. >>>>>> >>>>>>Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the >>>>>>group members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic >>>>>>silver bullet that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination of >>>>>>various solutions and proposals will start cutting into the spam flow >>>>>>until it stops. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yakov >>>>>> >>>>>>P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent me >>>>>>was not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is correct >>>>>>because I would rather have discussions in public so we can get >>>>>>comments from other people. >>>>>> >>>>>>At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly defined. >>>>>>>I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, local >>>>>>>and global. >>>>>>>The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't >>>>>>>seen anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam. >>>>>>>The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of consent >>>>>>>and its application would be global. It forces the erasure/stoppage >>>>>>>of all fraudulent email but also allows the end-user the whitelist options. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been >>>>>>>compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly address >>>>>>>all concerns. >>>>>>>Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a >>>>>>>centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The more >>>>>>>I post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become, >>>>>>>concerns have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those >>>>>>>advocating 'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect >>>>>>>financial considerations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all >>>>>>>fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the system. >>>>>>>It is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have 30 pages >>>>>>>of comments alone to address, however, all the comments have a >>>>>>>resolution within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete >>>>>>>accurate proposal of the system in the next few days once I have >>>>>>>compiled all the information together. It will refer to both local, >>>>>>>global, consent and forced issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>>>,research@solidmatrix.com >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this >>>>>>>>subject >>>>>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html). >>>>>>>>The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to >>>>>>>>end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated >>>>>>>>specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been >>>>>>>>>able to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>First of all take a look a the group's charter >>>>>>>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states >>>>>>>>>>we are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in >>>>>>>>>>all the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was >>>>>>>>>>put forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent in >>>>>>>>>>general and the consent framework in particular. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Yakov, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in >>>>>>>>>>>eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to deal >>>>>>>>>>>with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about spam >>>>>>>>>>>and that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the >>>>>>>>>>>Internet by it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from >>>>>>>>>>>the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their >>>>>>>>>>>own mail servers. >>>>>>>>>>>Can you clear any of these problems up? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >>>>>>>>>>>> > > consent-based system >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > as per >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > charter: >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>filter incoming=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >>>>>>>>>>>> > > and are not >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > mandated. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>from banning=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > whitelist of trusted >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > unknown senders. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders go to >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > the bulk folder, >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email >>>>>>>>>>>> addresses >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > of trusted senders, >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional features >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > such as digital >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined as >>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email from >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes to the >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > inbox unless >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and upon >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > receiving a >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined >>>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email coming >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored >>>>>>>>>>>> hashed or >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > encrypted to >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > protect privacy. >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Any thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Yakov >>>>> >>>>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>>>It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >>>>>http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile > >_________________________________________________________________ >It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:43:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10347 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIhER04739 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3cQ-0001EL-5J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10329; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3cM-0003Rt-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3cG-0003Rp-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3cC-00018A-KF; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3bM-000160-9w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10286 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3bI-0003R2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:04 -0400 Received: from bay8-f119.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.119] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3b6-0003Qc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:41:53 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:40:52 -0700 Received: from 62.252.200.188 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:40:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.200.188] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 18:40:52.0831 (UTC) FILETIME=[2255DEF0:01C33F37] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id OAA10287 Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Extended Overview Released Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:40:52 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper Copyright, including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003. Introduction 'GIEIS' has a global range in its application and is a hybrid consent/for= ce=20 model for prevention of fraudulent email. 'GIEIS' deals with both sender= =20 and recipient and acts as a 'gate-keeper' to the networks under its=20 protection. 'GIEIS' is not just a method of eliminating spam but also,=20 virus transmission, worm transmission, trojan transmission, chain-mail,=20 email hoaxes and all non-compliant mail. The 'GIEIS' system is designed = in=20 such a manner that bypassing the system is impossible. Architecture Overview 'GIEIS' is a new architecture for email. It extends the SMTP protocol=20 currently in use and requires the establishment of a centralised structur= e=20 for email verification. 'GIEIS' utilises the common point in all email=20 transmission from any source, the ISP. The proposed system will route al= l=20 email from an ISP's customer base through a special server known as an=20 'Email Authentication Server' (EAS). At this point, special encrypted co= des=20 are appended to the header that identify the account, the 'EAS' server, a= nd=20 the ISP from which the email was sent. A random encrypted ID code is al= so=20 appended and these details are stored to the 'EAS''s database. From here= ,=20 the email is then distributed to the recipients 'EAS'. The recipient's=20 'EAS' then contacts the 'GIEIS' central servers and 'GIEIS' confirms the=20 special encrypted codes held in the header of the email. 'GIEIS' achieve= s=20 this by communicating with the sender's 'EAS', confirming the database en= try=20 against codes received, deleting the database entry (or marking confirmed= ),=20 and relaying the results via encrypted transmission to the recipient's=20 'EAS'. This will result in one of two possible actions; either the email= is=20 sent to the recipient's email inbox or is deleted. Encryption This would most likely be a modified form of OpenPGP. It would be based = on=20 a combination of ciphers rather than just one. Ciphers being considered = are=20 TripleDES, CAST and Twofish. RSA encryption has been deemed to weak for=20 this purpose. Codes and encryption passphrases will be changed frequentl= y=20 automatically. Updates to 'EAS' will also be automated. Abuse of Domestic Accounts To prevent such abuses of these accounts several measures will be put in=20 place. A limit on the amount of recipient's will be imposed per email, a= ny=20 email which exceeds the limit will be automatically spanned as separate=20 emails by the clients software. The 'EAS' will refuse any non-compliant=20 email. A limit will be imposed on the amount of emails that may be sent=20 daily from any account. There are currently several proposals to limit the rate at which emails c= an=20 be sent. The first proposal is to have the sender validate each email by= =20 entering text based on a downloaded graphic. This suggestion has=20 limitations in respect to the visually impaired and blind members of the=20 Internet. This could be replaced by a simple puzzle, such as a question,= =20 for example how many days are there in a week? This would be very diffic= ult=20 to automate. A second proposal, that may include the first proposal, is that a delay o= f 5=20 to 10 seconds be imposed for each email sent. The 'EAS' would control th= e=20 rate, not the client software. The third proposal, which we believe to be the most acceptable, is an=20 incrementing delay based on the volume of emails sent. Every 3 emails=20 queued would result in an additional one second delay added. For example= ,=20 if 33 emails were queued, the first batch of 3 would be sent and a then=20 pause of one second. The next 3 emails would then be sent and a pause of= 2=20 seconds would occur. By the time we get to 30 emails there would be a 10= =20 second delay before the next batch of 3 emails were sent. As you can see= =20 this delay would continue to grow in respect to the amount of emails queu= ed.=20 This would force spammers to have a large amount of accounts and the=20 machines to connect to them. The time of opening new accounts manually a= nd=20 the cost (machines and time) would be prohibitive. Business Accounts There has been some concern over how 'GIEIS' will handle business email a= nd=20 large volume traffic. All businesses will have to register with their IS= P=20 and provide company registration details. These details are then passed = to=20 the 'GIEIS' centre where a business code will be issued. The business'=20 email will then be routed through the ISP's 'EAS'. The process of sendin= g=20 bulk email will be transparent. The software will compile a list of doma= ins=20 that it will require access bulk access to and the amount of emails to be= =20 sent. This list will be transmitted to the ISP's 'EAS'. The ISP's 'EAS'= =20 will then contact the 'GIEIS' central servers transmitting the encrypted=20 business code and the list of domains. 'GIEIS' will then contact the doma= ins=20 on the list an authorize a bulk reception from the transmitting domain an= d=20 the amount of emails to be received, again via encrypted message. 'GIEIS'= =20 waits until it receives an acknowledgement from each domain and then=20 transmits a ready signal to the ISP's 'EAS' (may also include a list of d= own=20 servers). The ISP's 'EAS' then contacts the business' email software and= =20 requests a begin of transmission. Any errors are relayed back to the=20 business. Mailing Lists and Discussion Groups Mailing lists must contact 'GIEIS' directly for setup and must be associa= ted=20 with a bonafide website domain. This domain will be checked by 'GIEIS'=20 representative and the hosting company contacted for further information.= A=20 credit card will be required and a $1 (=A31, 1 euro) charge will be made = to=20 it. The card details must match those to which the domain is registered.= =20 Also, a mailing address and telephone contact information would be requir= ed.=20 They will receive a written copy of the 'Terms of Service' which they m= ust=20 sign and send back to 'GIEIS'. Upon reception 'GIEIS' will implement the= =20 account with their ISP. The emails then sent by the mailing list will be analyzed by heuristics. = =20 Each message will also be parsed for HTML code, such as IMAGE tags and jp= g,=20 bmp images. As the majority of mailing systems use either ASCII or UNICO= DE=20 text only, spam can be detected, blocked and the offender's credit card=20 billed with a fine, or the offender prosecuted. Heuristic analysis will = not=20 be a permanent feature, it will most likely be a feature that will only b= e=20 in place for the first 6 months of any new mailing list request. On=20 successful completion of this 6 month 'trial period', the account will be= =20 deemed 'secure', heuristics will be stopped and the system will then use=20 end-user reports only. Technically, the account will operate in a similar manner to business=20 accounts and allow for bulk transmission. Virus/Worm/Trojan Protection As 'GIEIS' can trace email sending directly to account level. Any form o= f=20 attack launched on remote machines can be minimised and the perpetrator=20 tracked immediately. Each 'EAS' system will have built-in anti-virus=20 scanning software that will scan all outbound email attachments. Any=20 infected file will be bounced back to sending system with information of = the=20 virus. This will prevent spread of 'address book' virus' that have becom= e=20 common place within the last few years. The senders 'EAS' will inform th= e=20 user when their daily limit has been reached, it will also inform them th= at=20 if they have not sent this volume that their machine may be infected or h= ave=20 been hacked. There will be information on to take steps to resolve the=20 problem. A further extension, under consideration, is the flagging of executable=20 attachments and their spread. This would assist in rapidly identifying n= ew=20 virus'/worms/trojans and 'GIEIS', upon confirmation of a new infection,=20 would be able to seal those accounts until updated anti-virus patterns we= re=20 installed to all 'EAS's. A further suggestion, is linking a reporting service from 'GIEIS' directl= y=20 to the computer fraud departments of Police forces globally. This would=20 assist in taking immediate action against offenders. Period of Introduction Until a sufficient amount of ISPs are 'GIEIS Compliant' the 'GIEIS' syste= m=20 will be in a test mode. This will most likely be a period of 6 months, t= o 1=20 year. A specific date will be chosen from when the system will become fu= lly=20 operational. After that date, only 'GIEIS' compliant systems would be ab= le=20 to send email to those domains protected under 'GIEIS'. This would force= a=20 global update, or many would find their customer base rapidly shrinking. In order to speed the process. 'GIEIS' would be setup in partnership wit= h=20 the world's largest providers of ISP and email services. No company coul= d=20 afford to be excluded from their domains and adoption would become rapid.= =20 These companies have the legal right to take all steps necessary to prote= ct=20 their networks and customer base. Account and Domain Blocking The 'GIEIS' system will have the ability to suspend email service at acco= unt=20 level and domain level. Any blockage will be in accordance with the 'Ter= ms=20 of Service Agreement'. Terms of Service Agreement, Guidelines and Dispute mechanisms These will be determined by the members of the IRTF and IETF and conform = to=20 International law. Charges and Fines Setup fees will be charged for business users. Fines can be imposed, as = per=20 the 'Terms of Service Agreement' and services restricted until fines are=20 paid in full. 'GIEIS' Centre's Legal Status The 'GIEIS' centre will be a non-profit organization. Its dispute mechan= ism=20 and complaints procedure will be completely transparent and all disputes=20 will be posted to the centre's website. There will be no closed door=20 policy. The 'GIEIS' system will not be accessible by any company and wil= l=20 be completely independent. It will also not be a government agency of an= y=20 form, it will be a public body. Privacy Concerns 'GIEIS' does not and will not analyze the majority of email transmission,= =20 unless specifically requested to do so, or when breaches of the 'Terms of= =20 Service Agreement' have been made. Also, government agencies already hav= e=20 the ability, and the funding, to analyze emails on a global basis. 'GIEI= S'=20 would not be able to compare to the supercomputers used by the NSA/CIA (U= S)=20 and the GCHQ (UK). 'GIEIS' will have a legally binding 'privacy agreemen= t'=20 and will never distribute, share, or sell any personal information. Opposition to the Proposal The opposition to this proposal falls into two main categories. Those wh= o=20 are paranoid about a centralised agency analyzing email transmissions, an= d=20 software companies that are either based or have products based on=20 'anti-spam' techniques. 'GIEIS' would make these products and companies=20 completely redundant on a global basis. Copyright, including intellectual copyright Mark McCarron, 2003. _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!=20 http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 14:56:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10822 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIuES07040 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3p0-0001pT-IX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10806; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3ow-0003XV-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3or-0003XS-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3oo-0001m7-2C; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3oA-0001kC-Je for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:55:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10775 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:55:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3o7-0003Wz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:55:19 -0400 Received: from mms.tumbleweed.com ([216.148.232.2] helo=mms-rc.tumbleweed.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3nv-0003Wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:55:08 -0400 Received: from 10.1.5.15 by mms-rc.tumbleweed.com with ESMTP (Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.5.2)); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:02 -0700 Received: from tumbleweed.com (circle.tumbleweed.com [10.1.60.104]) by pigeon.tumbleweed with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id N4LG7R90; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3F008749.8020707@tumbleweed.com> From: "Jean-Christophe Bandini" Organization: Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (http://www.tumbleweed.com ) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bob@wyman.us cc: "'Spencer Dawkins'" , "'Asrg@Ietf. Org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <002c01c33f20$aa7fc730$640aa8c0@BOBDEV> X-WSS-ID: 131E58C0586574-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:01 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob >>then whitelist become _more_ expensive to maintain than >>blacklist because as you said above there are 'massively >>more non-spammer than spammer' > So, yes, at the "global" level, whitelists would be larger than > blacklists, however, at a "local", individual user leve, the whitelists > would probably be smaller than the blacklists. Yes agree for end user level and that's a good point. jean _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 15:02:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11173 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UJ2Ba09264 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3ul-0002PL-CP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11085; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3uh-0003bh-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3uc-0003be-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3ub-0002Hv-3e; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3u3-0002Gg-GW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:01:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11075 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3tz-0003bO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:01:23 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3tn-0003bJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:01:12 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630150035.00b5b2a8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: "Kurt Magnusson" , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] A simpleton's view of ASRG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:00:36 -0400 At 04:22 PM 6/30/2003 -0200, Kurt Magnusson wrote: >Mike Wild wrote: >......... >............... >>capable and more intelligent members of the list with an idea of the >>requirements/desires of administrators that cannot or will not "roll their >>own" solution. As a final thought we did actually consider stopping doing >>email altogether. Solving or, at least, reducing the spam problem to a >>nuisance level has become a "revenge thing" for me, for better or worse. I >............... > >If the list learn to close the lid on the technicalities for some time and >start >looking at the requirements and revisits the problem at hand again, the >chance exist. >[..] I agree - the last few months have been spent discussing various proposals under the sun. It is time to start having a sense of direction in this group. We need to look over the charter, and start working again on the taxonomy, requirements, consent framework, etc. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 15:05:37 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11493 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UJ5AY10049 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3xe-0002c0-3L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11415; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3xa-0003eQ-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:06 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3xU-0003eN-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3xV-0002Yr-TY; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3xF-0002Y2-DP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:04:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11368 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3xB-0003e4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:04:41 -0400 Received: from mxsmta01.inithost.com ([209.235.30.103] helo=mxsmta01.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3x0-0003dT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:04:30 -0400 Received: from garbagedump.com ([24.128.102.183]) by mxsmta01.dellhost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030630190536.FWUL6624.mxsmta01.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3F008993.5030308@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a; MultiZilla v1.4.0.4A) Gecko/20030612 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark McCarron CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Extended Overview Released References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA11371 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:03:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why not just use a VPN - point to point - and I can reject any=20 connection that I don't like! This seems to not require a centralized=20 anything. Chuck Wegrzyn Mark McCarron wrote: > GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam Syste= m > a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper > > Copyright, including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003. > > > Introduction > > 'GIEIS' has a global range in its application and is a hybrid=20 > consent/force model for prevention of fraudulent email. 'GIEIS' deals=20 > with both sender and recipient and acts as a 'gate-keeper' to the=20 > networks under its protection. 'GIEIS' is not just a method of=20 > eliminating spam but also, virus transmission, worm transmission,=20 > trojan transmission, chain-mail, email hoaxes and all non-compliant=20 > mail. The 'GIEIS' system is designed in such a manner that bypassing=20 > the system is impossible. > > > Architecture Overview > > 'GIEIS' is a new architecture for email. It extends the SMTP protocol=20 > currently in use and requires the establishment of a centralised=20 > structure for email verification. 'GIEIS' utilises the common point=20 > in all email transmission from any source, the ISP. The proposed=20 > system will route all email from an ISP's customer base through a=20 > special server known as an 'Email Authentication Server' (EAS). At=20 > this point, special encrypted codes are appended to the header that=20 > identify the account, the 'EAS' server, and the ISP from which the=20 > email was sent. A random encrypted ID code is also appended and these=20 > details are stored to the 'EAS''s database. From here, the email is=20 > then distributed to the recipients 'EAS'. The recipient's 'EAS' then=20 > contacts the 'GIEIS' central servers and 'GIEIS' confirms the special=20 > encrypted codes held in the header of the email. 'GIEIS' achieves=20 > this by communicating with the sender's 'EAS', confirming the database=20 > entry against codes received, deleting the database entry (or marking=20 > confirmed), and relaying the results via encrypted transmission to the=20 > recipient's 'EAS'. This will result in one of two possible actions;=20 > either the email is sent to the recipient's email inbox or is deleted. > > > Encryption > > This would most likely be a modified form of OpenPGP. It would be=20 > based on a combination of ciphers rather than just one. Ciphers being=20 > considered are TripleDES, CAST and Twofish. RSA encryption has been=20 > deemed to weak for this purpose. Codes and encryption passphrases=20 > will be changed frequently automatically. Updates to 'EAS' will also=20 > be automated. > > > Abuse of Domestic Accounts > > To prevent such abuses of these accounts several measures will be put=20 > in place. A limit on the amount of recipient's will be imposed per=20 > email, any email which exceeds the limit will be automatically spanned=20 > as separate emails by the clients software. The 'EAS' will refuse any=20 > non-compliant email. A limit will be imposed on the amount of emails=20 > that may be sent daily from any account. > > There are currently several proposals to limit the rate at which=20 > emails can be sent. The first proposal is to have the sender validate=20 > each email by entering text based on a downloaded graphic. This=20 > suggestion has limitations in respect to the visually impaired and=20 > blind members of the Internet. This could be replaced by a simple=20 > puzzle, such as a question, for example how many days are there in a=20 > week? This would be very difficult to automate. > > A second proposal, that may include the first proposal, is that a=20 > delay of 5 to 10 seconds be imposed for each email sent. The 'EAS'=20 > would control the rate, not the client software. > > The third proposal, which we believe to be the most acceptable, is an=20 > incrementing delay based on the volume of emails sent. Every 3 emails=20 > queued would result in an additional one second delay added. For=20 > example, if 33 emails were queued, the first batch of 3 would be sent=20 > and a then pause of one second. The next 3 emails would then be sent=20 > and a pause of 2 seconds would occur. By the time we get to 30 emails=20 > there would be a 10 second delay before the next batch of 3 emails=20 > were sent. As you can see this delay would continue to grow in=20 > respect to the amount of emails queued. This would force spammers to=20 > have a large amount of accounts and the machines to connect to them. =20 > The time of opening new accounts manually and the cost (machines and=20 > time) would be prohibitive. > > > Business Accounts > > There has been some concern over how 'GIEIS' will handle business=20 > email and large volume traffic. All businesses will have to register=20 > with their ISP and provide company registration details. These=20 > details are then passed to the 'GIEIS' centre where a business code=20 > will be issued. The business' email will then be routed through the=20 > ISP's 'EAS'. The process of sending bulk email will be transparent. =20 > The software will compile a list of domains that it will require=20 > access bulk access to and the amount of emails to be sent. This list=20 > will be transmitted to the ISP's 'EAS'. The ISP's 'EAS' will then=20 > contact the 'GIEIS' central servers transmitting the encrypted=20 > business code and the list of domains. 'GIEIS' will then contact the=20 > domains on the list an authorize a bulk reception from the=20 > transmitting domain and the amount of emails to be received, again via=20 > encrypted message. 'GIEIS' waits until it receives an acknowledgement=20 > from each domain and then transmits a ready signal to the ISP's 'EAS'=20 > (may also include a list of down servers). The ISP's 'EAS' then=20 > contacts the business' email software and requests a begin of=20 > transmission. Any errors are relayed back to the business. > > > Mailing Lists and Discussion Groups > > Mailing lists must contact 'GIEIS' directly for setup and must be=20 > associated with a bonafide website domain. This domain will be=20 > checked by 'GIEIS' representative and the hosting company contacted=20 > for further information. A credit card will be required and a $1 (=A31= ,=20 > 1 euro) charge will be made to it. The card details must match those=20 > to which the domain is registered. Also, a mailing address and=20 > telephone contact information would be required. They will receive a=20 > written copy of the 'Terms of Service' which they must sign and send=20 > back to 'GIEIS'. Upon reception 'GIEIS' will implement the account=20 > with their ISP. > > The emails then sent by the mailing list will be analyzed by=20 > heuristics. Each message will also be parsed for HTML code, such as=20 > IMAGE tags and jpg, bmp images. As the majority of mailing systems=20 > use either ASCII or UNICODE text only, spam can be detected, blocked=20 > and the offender's credit card billed with a fine, or the offender=20 > prosecuted. Heuristic analysis will not be a permanent feature, it=20 > will most likely be a feature that will only be in place for the first=20 > 6 months of any new mailing list request. On successful completion of=20 > this 6 month 'trial period', the account will be deemed 'secure',=20 > heuristics will be stopped and the system will then use end-user=20 > reports only. > > Technically, the account will operate in a similar manner to business=20 > accounts and allow for bulk transmission. > > > Virus/Worm/Trojan Protection > > As 'GIEIS' can trace email sending directly to account level. Any=20 > form of attack launched on remote machines can be minimised and the=20 > perpetrator tracked immediately. Each 'EAS' system will have built-in=20 > anti-virus scanning software that will scan all outbound email=20 > attachments. Any infected file will be bounced back to sending system=20 > with information of the virus. This will prevent spread of 'address=20 > book' virus' that have become common place within the last few years. =20 > The senders 'EAS' will inform the user when their daily limit has been=20 > reached, it will also inform them that if they have not sent this=20 > volume that their machine may be infected or have been hacked. There=20 > will be information on to take steps to resolve the problem. > > A further extension, under consideration, is the flagging of=20 > executable attachments and their spread. This would assist in rapidly=20 > identifying new virus'/worms/trojans and 'GIEIS', upon confirmation of=20 > a new infection, would be able to seal those accounts until updated=20 > anti-virus patterns were installed to all 'EAS's. > > A further suggestion, is linking a reporting service from 'GIEIS'=20 > directly to the computer fraud departments of Police forces globally. =20 > This would assist in taking immediate action against offenders. > > > Period of Introduction > > Until a sufficient amount of ISPs are 'GIEIS Compliant' the 'GIEIS'=20 > system will be in a test mode. This will most likely be a period of 6=20 > months, to 1 year. A specific date will be chosen from when the=20 > system will become fully operational. After that date, only 'GIEIS'=20 > compliant systems would be able to send email to those domains=20 > protected under 'GIEIS'. This would force a global update, or many=20 > would find their customer base rapidly shrinking. > > In order to speed the process. 'GIEIS' would be setup in partnership=20 > with the world's largest providers of ISP and email services. No=20 > company could afford to be excluded from their domains and adoption=20 > would become rapid. These companies have the legal right to take all=20 > steps necessary to protect their networks and customer base. > > > Account and Domain Blocking > > The 'GIEIS' system will have the ability to suspend email service at=20 > account level and domain level. Any blockage will be in accordance=20 > with the 'Terms of Service Agreement'. > > > Terms of Service Agreement, Guidelines and Dispute mechanisms > > These will be determined by the members of the IRTF and IETF and=20 > conform to International law. > > > Charges and Fines > > Setup fees will be charged for business users. Fines can be imposed,=20 > as per the 'Terms of Service Agreement' and services restricted until=20 > fines are paid in full. > > > 'GIEIS' Centre's Legal Status > > The 'GIEIS' centre will be a non-profit organization. Its dispute=20 > mechanism and complaints procedure will be completely transparent and=20 > all disputes will be posted to the centre's website. There will be no=20 > closed door policy. The 'GIEIS' system will not be accessible by any=20 > company and will be completely independent. It will also not be a=20 > government agency of any form, it will be a public body. > > > Privacy Concerns > > 'GIEIS' does not and will not analyze the majority of email=20 > transmission, unless specifically requested to do so, or when breaches=20 > of the 'Terms of Service Agreement' have been made. Also, government=20 > agencies already have the ability, and the funding, to analyze emails=20 > on a global basis. 'GIEIS' would not be able to compare to the=20 > supercomputers used by the NSA/CIA (US) and the GCHQ (UK). 'GIEIS'=20 > will have a legally binding 'privacy agreement' and will never=20 > distribute, share, or sell any personal information. > > > Opposition to the Proposal > > The opposition to this proposal falls into two main categories. Those=20 > who are paranoid about a centralised agency analyzing email=20 > transmissions, and software companies that are either based or have=20 > products based on 'anti-spam' techniques. 'GIEIS' would make these=20 > products and companies completely redundant on a global basis. > > Copyright, including intellectual copyright Mark McCarron, 2003. > > _________________________________________________________________ > It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!=20 > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 15:06:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11622 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UJ67Y10701 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:06:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3yZ-0002mW-CG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:06:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11556; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3yV-0003fE-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:06:03 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3yP-0003fB-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3yS-0002gD-O5; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:06:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3yR-0002fv-6g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11537 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3yN-0003ez-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:55 -0400 Received: from mxsmta02.inithost.com ([209.235.30.104] helo=mxsmta02.dellhost.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3yC-0003dh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:05:44 -0400 Received: from garbagedump.com ([24.128.102.183]) by mxsmta02.dellhost.com (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with ESMTP id <20030630190202.JQBQ7659.mxsmta02.dellhost.com@garbagedump.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:02:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3F0089A3.6000804@garbagedump.com> From: "C. Wegrzyn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a; MultiZilla v1.4.0.4A) Gecko/20030612 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark McCarron CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Extended Overview Released References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA11538 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:04:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why not just use a VPN - point to point - and I can reject any=20 connection that I don't like! This seems to not require a centralized=20 anything. Am I missing something here? Chuck Wegrzyn Mark McCarron wrote: > GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam Syste= m > a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper > > Copyright, including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003. > > > Introduction > > 'GIEIS' has a global range in its application and is a hybrid=20 > consent/force model for prevention of fraudulent email. 'GIEIS' deals=20 > with both sender and recipient and acts as a 'gate-keeper' to the=20 > networks under its protection. 'GIEIS' is not just a method of=20 > eliminating spam but also, virus transmission, worm transmission,=20 > trojan transmission, chain-mail, email hoaxes and all non-compliant=20 > mail. The 'GIEIS' system is designed in such a manner that bypassing=20 > the system is impossible. > > > Architecture Overview > > 'GIEIS' is a new architecture for email. It extends the SMTP protocol=20 > currently in use and requires the establishment of a centralised=20 > structure for email verification. 'GIEIS' utilises the common point=20 > in all email transmission from any source, the ISP. The proposed=20 > system will route all email from an ISP's customer base through a=20 > special server known as an 'Email Authentication Server' (EAS). At=20 > this point, special encrypted codes are appended to the header that=20 > identify the account, the 'EAS' server, and the ISP from which the=20 > email was sent. A random encrypted ID code is also appended and these=20 > details are stored to the 'EAS''s database. From here, the email is=20 > then distributed to the recipients 'EAS'. The recipient's 'EAS' then=20 > contacts the 'GIEIS' central servers and 'GIEIS' confirms the special=20 > encrypted codes held in the header of the email. 'GIEIS' achieves=20 > this by communicating with the sender's 'EAS', confirming the database=20 > entry against codes received, deleting the database entry (or marking=20 > confirmed), and relaying the results via encrypted transmission to the=20 > recipient's 'EAS'. This will result in one of two possible actions;=20 > either the email is sent to the recipient's email inbox or is deleted. > > > Encryption > > This would most likely be a modified form of OpenPGP. It would be=20 > based on a combination of ciphers rather than just one. Ciphers being=20 > considered are TripleDES, CAST and Twofish. RSA encryption has been=20 > deemed to weak for this purpose. Codes and encryption passphrases=20 > will be changed frequently automatically. Updates to 'EAS' will also=20 > be automated. > > > Abuse of Domestic Accounts > > To prevent such abuses of these accounts several measures will be put=20 > in place. A limit on the amount of recipient's will be imposed per=20 > email, any email which exceeds the limit will be automatically spanned=20 > as separate emails by the clients software. The 'EAS' will refuse any=20 > non-compliant email. A limit will be imposed on the amount of emails=20 > that may be sent daily from any account. > > There are currently several proposals to limit the rate at which=20 > emails can be sent. The first proposal is to have the sender validate=20 > each email by entering text based on a downloaded graphic. This=20 > suggestion has limitations in respect to the visually impaired and=20 > blind members of the Internet. This could be replaced by a simple=20 > puzzle, such as a question, for example how many days are there in a=20 > week? This would be very difficult to automate. > > A second proposal, that may include the first proposal, is that a=20 > delay of 5 to 10 seconds be imposed for each email sent. The 'EAS'=20 > would control the rate, not the client software. > > The third proposal, which we believe to be the most acceptable, is an=20 > incrementing delay based on the volume of emails sent. Every 3 emails=20 > queued would result in an additional one second delay added. For=20 > example, if 33 emails were queued, the first batch of 3 would be sent=20 > and a then pause of one second. The next 3 emails would then be sent=20 > and a pause of 2 seconds would occur. By the time we get to 30 emails=20 > there would be a 10 second delay before the next batch of 3 emails=20 > were sent. As you can see this delay would continue to grow in=20 > respect to the amount of emails queued. This would force spammers to=20 > have a large amount of accounts and the machines to connect to them. =20 > The time of opening new accounts manually and the cost (machines and=20 > time) would be prohibitive. > > > Business Accounts > > There has been some concern over how 'GIEIS' will handle business=20 > email and large volume traffic. All businesses will have to register=20 > with their ISP and provide company registration details. These=20 > details are then passed to the 'GIEIS' centre where a business code=20 > will be issued. The business' email will then be routed through the=20 > ISP's 'EAS'. The process of sending bulk email will be transparent. =20 > The software will compile a list of domains that it will require=20 > access bulk access to and the amount of emails to be sent. This list=20 > will be transmitted to the ISP's 'EAS'. The ISP's 'EAS' will then=20 > contact the 'GIEIS' central servers transmitting the encrypted=20 > business code and the list of domains. 'GIEIS' will then contact the=20 > domains on the list an authorize a bulk reception from the=20 > transmitting domain and the amount of emails to be received, again via=20 > encrypted message. 'GIEIS' waits until it receives an acknowledgement=20 > from each domain and then transmits a ready signal to the ISP's 'EAS'=20 > (may also include a list of down servers). The ISP's 'EAS' then=20 > contacts the business' email software and requests a begin of=20 > transmission. Any errors are relayed back to the business. > > > Mailing Lists and Discussion Groups > > Mailing lists must contact 'GIEIS' directly for setup and must be=20 > associated with a bonafide website domain. This domain will be=20 > checked by 'GIEIS' representative and the hosting company contacted=20 > for further information. A credit card will be required and a $1 (=A31= ,=20 > 1 euro) charge will be made to it. The card details must match those=20 > to which the domain is registered. Also, a mailing address and=20 > telephone contact information would be required. They will receive a=20 > written copy of the 'Terms of Service' which they must sign and send=20 > back to 'GIEIS'. Upon reception 'GIEIS' will implement the account=20 > with their ISP. > > The emails then sent by the mailing list will be analyzed by=20 > heuristics. Each message will also be parsed for HTML code, such as=20 > IMAGE tags and jpg, bmp images. As the majority of mailing systems=20 > use either ASCII or UNICODE text only, spam can be detected, blocked=20 > and the offender's credit card billed with a fine, or the offender=20 > prosecuted. Heuristic analysis will not be a permanent feature, it=20 > will most likely be a feature that will only be in place for the first=20 > 6 months of any new mailing list request. On successful completion of=20 > this 6 month 'trial period', the account will be deemed 'secure',=20 > heuristics will be stopped and the system will then use end-user=20 > reports only. > > Technically, the account will operate in a similar manner to business=20 > accounts and allow for bulk transmission. > > > Virus/Worm/Trojan Protection > > As 'GIEIS' can trace email sending directly to account level. Any=20 > form of attack launched on remote machines can be minimised and the=20 > perpetrator tracked immediately. Each 'EAS' system will have built-in=20 > anti-virus scanning software that will scan all outbound email=20 > attachments. Any infected file will be bounced back to sending system=20 > with information of the virus. This will prevent spread of 'address=20 > book' virus' that have become common place within the last few years. =20 > The senders 'EAS' will inform the user when their daily limit has been=20 > reached, it will also inform them that if they have not sent this=20 > volume that their machine may be infected or have been hacked. There=20 > will be information on to take steps to resolve the problem. > > A further extension, under consideration, is the flagging of=20 > executable attachments and their spread. This would assist in rapidly=20 > identifying new virus'/worms/trojans and 'GIEIS', upon confirmation of=20 > a new infection, would be able to seal those accounts until updated=20 > anti-virus patterns were installed to all 'EAS's. > > A further suggestion, is linking a reporting service from 'GIEIS'=20 > directly to the computer fraud departments of Police forces globally. =20 > This would assist in taking immediate action against offenders. > > > Period of Introduction > > Until a sufficient amount of ISPs are 'GIEIS Compliant' the 'GIEIS'=20 > system will be in a test mode. This will most likely be a period of 6=20 > months, to 1 year. A specific date will be chosen from when the=20 > system will become fully operational. After that date, only 'GIEIS'=20 > compliant systems would be able to send email to those domains=20 > protected under 'GIEIS'. This would force a global update, or many=20 > would find their customer base rapidly shrinking. > > In order to speed the process. 'GIEIS' would be setup in partnership=20 > with the world's largest providers of ISP and email services. No=20 > company could afford to be excluded from their domains and adoption=20 > would become rapid. These companies have the legal right to take all=20 > steps necessary to protect their networks and customer base. > > > Account and Domain Blocking > > The 'GIEIS' system will have the ability to suspend email service at=20 > account level and domain level. Any blockage will be in accordance=20 > with the 'Terms of Service Agreement'. > > > Terms of Service Agreement, Guidelines and Dispute mechanisms > > These will be determined by the members of the IRTF and IETF and=20 > conform to International law. > > > Charges and Fines > > Setup fees will be charged for business users. Fines can be imposed,=20 > as per the 'Terms of Service Agreement' and services restricted until=20 > fines are paid in full. > > > 'GIEIS' Centre's Legal Status > > The 'GIEIS' centre will be a non-profit organization. Its dispute=20 > mechanism and complaints procedure will be completely transparent and=20 > all disputes will be posted to the centre's website. There will be no=20 > closed door policy. The 'GIEIS' system will not be accessible by any=20 > company and will be completely independent. It will also not be a=20 > government agency of any form, it will be a public body. > > > Privacy Concerns > > 'GIEIS' does not and will not analyze the majority of email=20 > transmission, unless specifically requested to do so, or when breaches=20 > of the 'Terms of Service Agreement' have been made. Also, government=20 > agencies already have the ability, and the funding, to analyze emails=20 > on a global basis. 'GIEIS' would not be able to compare to the=20 > supercomputers used by the NSA/CIA (US) and the GCHQ (UK). 'GIEIS'=20 > will have a legally binding 'privacy agreement' and will never=20 > distribute, share, or sell any personal information. > > > Opposition to the Proposal > > The opposition to this proposal falls into two main categories. Those=20 > who are paranoid about a centralised agency analyzing email=20 > transmissions, and software companies that are either based or have=20 > products based on 'anti-spam' techniques. 'GIEIS' would make these=20 > products and companies completely redundant on a global basis. > > Copyright, including intellectual copyright Mark McCarron, 2003. > > _________________________________________________________________ > It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!=20 > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 15:32:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10348 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UIhEi04745 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3cQ-0001EM-6J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10327; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3cM-0003Rw-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:10 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3cG-0003Rq-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3cD-00018I-0p; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X3c0-000176-O8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10318 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3bx-0003RW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:45 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X3bf-0003RH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:42:29 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630144152.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:41:59 -0400 >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.200.188] >X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] >From: "Mark McCarron" >To: research@solidmatrix.com >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:39:09 +0000 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 18:39:09.0572 (UTC) >FILETIME=[E4C9CC40:01C33F36] > > >I am not refering to constructive critism, this is most welcome. However, >I am fully aware of people's agendas on this matter, this is what I am >refering to. Also the group will be the ones deciding the guidelines for >the 'GIEIS' system, this is its main reason for inclusion. Not technical >input, as there seems to be very few who can go that deep. It would be >most welcome. > >I'm afriad that all enquiries are kept confidential due to partnerships >with current anti-spam solution providers. > >Mark McCarron. > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org, "Paul >>Judge" >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:31:44 -0400 >> >> >>>>From: "Mark McCarron" >>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:21:09 +0000 >>>> >>>>The 'GIEIS' system is not designed to be backwards compatible. There >>>>is no possible way for any solution to arise using the current >>>>system. If it could be achieved it would have happened by now. >>>> >>>>I am completely unconcerned with objections. As I said before, I not >>>>designing a system to win a 'popularity' contest. I am concerned with >>>>only one thing, complete effectiveness. Nothing else. >> >>Then why are you participating in the group? If you are not here to ask >>for our opinions, why waste our time and effort on this? This group is >>intended for people to discuss the spam issue and get opinions, comments, >>and objections, so the kinks in different proposals can be worked out >>before they are implemented. >> >>>>I looked at the systems you from the links you provided. They can all >>>>be bypassed without too much effort. >>>> >>>>It will not be an alternative, the system will not be active until the >>>>patner companies are ready. Then it will become exclusive. >> >>Can you name a few partners? >> >>>>I read mike's proposal, its slightly different from my system. You >>>>will understand this within the next hour or so. >>>> >>>>Mark McCarron. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:54:33 -0400 >>>>> >>>>>At 05:06 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Thankyou for your reply. I have not been posting this conversation >>>>>>to the group. You can if you wish, you have my full permission to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sorry, I wasn't refering to you personally about selling anti-span >>>>>>solutions, that was just a general comment. 'The Ultimate Spam >>>>>>System' may be too hard to handle, but that is an accurate >>>>>>description of the system. >>>>> >>>>>There are numerous other proposals that seek to change the underlying >>>>>infrastructure - YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Example of this would be Walter >>>>>Dnes's proposal, another example would the AMDP protocol >>>>>(http://www.amdpmail.com/), MTP protocol >>>>>(http://www.danisch.de/tmp/draft_mtp.txt), etc. Also take a look at >>>>>this list message >>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00882.html) >>>>>that lists objection to new systems. >>>>> >>>>>>Also, as you learn within the next few hours, the system will be near >>>>>>impossible to hack based upon its architecture. I have complete the >>>>>>overview today, and it will be released in the next coming hours to >>>>>>the mailing group. >>>>>> >>>>>>I feel that change to the architecture is the magic bullet >>>>>>solution. I am not claiming this will be easy, but it is certainly >>>>>>far from impossible. >>>>> >>>>>We know as a group that changing the architecture will significantly >>>>>reduce the spam problem. However, moving over and implementing such >>>>>change is extremely hard as Alan DeKok and many other pointed out. Our >>>>>goal is to create a cohesive framework for anti-spam solutions with >>>>>short, medium and long term solutions. >>>>> >>>>>>This will not be an alternative email system that will reside along >>>>>>side the current one. It will replace it completely making it >>>>>>entirely redundant. >>>>> >>>>>However until it does, it will operate side by side with the regular >>>>>SMTP. Thus, its alternative. >>>>> >>>>>>The US military is instigating a change to IPv6 in mid 2004 or 2006 >>>>>>(I'll clear that date up, the source is at Reuters, I read it a few days ago). >>>>>>This will have a global impact, I believe that 'GIEIS' would be >>>>>>implemented at this stage also. >>>>> >>>>>IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 UNLIKE your system, Walter >>>>>Dnes's proposal and many others have accounted to backwards >>>>>compatibility, you have not yet as seen from this quote: >>>>> >>>>>"What would happen if this system was implemented and I tried to send >>>>>spam or even an email from an older server? >>>>>The message would not be received by those protected by 'GIEIS'." >>>>> >>>>>>Also, my system would inform users when a limit was reached. Users >>>>>>would know if they sent this volume of email and the system would >>>>>>have information of those who suspect their machine was infected or hacked. >>>>> >>>>>This idea has been proposed before by Mike Rubel >>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04616.html). >>>>> >>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>>Subject: [offlist] Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:29:09 -0400 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The consent framework is not a specific solution - its a framework. >>>>>>>Various anti-spam tools and proposals including yours will fit into >>>>>>>this framework. It is more of a bird-eye view of all anti-spam solutions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As for your specific proposal, first of all my company does not >>>>>>>write or distribute anti-spam software so I do not have "financial >>>>>>>considerations" here. I also do not like the name calling between >>>>>>>different group members - it causes a feeling of discord. >>>>>>>Additionally, calling your system "the ultimate anti spam system" is >>>>>>>a bit too much for most members to handle. I would like to see >>>>>>>everyone to stay away from name calling while keeping in mind that >>>>>>>this is a technical list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As for the technical considerations of your proposal, what you are >>>>>>>proposing essentially is an alternative email system along side of >>>>>>>the current one. This is similar to the system being proposed by >>>>>>>Walter Dnes except that his system does not rely on cryptographic >>>>>>>methods (see >>>>>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05683.html). >>>>>>>The problem with this system is three fold - one is the fact that >>>>>>>everyone has to change in order to use it which is also a problem >>>>>>>with Walter's proposal. The second problem is privacy - what you are >>>>>>>essentially proposing is that every single email message will have a >>>>>>>tracking number that can be traced to the sender. This creates >>>>>>>potential for abuse. Third, inter-operability with existing email is >>>>>>>a big problem as well since no one would want to use an alternative >>>>>>>system unless many people will switch over to it and many people >>>>>>>will not switch to it until others use it. If you look through the >>>>>>>mailing list archive somewhere there is a list of requirements by >>>>>>>Eric Williams. I asked him to email me the most recent copy which I >>>>>>>will forward to you. Among those requirements, deployment and >>>>>>>inter-operability rank pretty high up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is obvious that creating an alternative email system will cut >>>>>>>down on spam since its the open nature of the Net that causes it. >>>>>>>But as I mentioned before, cell phone companies build their SMS >>>>>>>systems based on email (at least in US) and SMTP, so you can see how >>>>>>>pervasive existing standards are. Additionally, as Barry Shain has >>>>>>>mentioned many times before, much of spam is being sent via hacked >>>>>>>computers. Even with your rate limits in place, spammers can >>>>>>>probably be able to coordinate many hacked computers to send spam >>>>>>>from legit GEIS/EAS senders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Among the various discussions over the last few months, many of the >>>>>>>group members have reached a conclusion that there is not magic >>>>>>>silver bullet that will stop spam overnight. Rather, a combination >>>>>>>of various solutions and proposals will start cutting into the spam >>>>>>>flow until it stops. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>> >>>>>>>P.S. I am replying to you off-list since the message that you sent >>>>>>>me was not CCed to the group list. Please let me know if this is >>>>>>>correct because I would rather have discussions in public so we can >>>>>>>get comments from other people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At 03:23 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Paul is an excellent poster, he has the subject matter clearly defined. >>>>>>>>I see he has broken the issue down to two major catagories, local >>>>>>>>and global. >>>>>>>>The consent system is going to be difficult to implement, I haven't >>>>>>>>seen anything that actually deals with issue of how to prevent sending spam. >>>>>>>>The 'GIEIS' system would be on the middle ground in terms of >>>>>>>>consent and its application would be global. It forces the >>>>>>>>erasure/stoppage of all fraudulent email but also allows the >>>>>>>>end-user the whitelist options. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There has been a lot of confusion on the system and I have been >>>>>>>>compiling all the postings in one file so that I can clearly >>>>>>>>address all concerns. >>>>>>>>Also, there seems to be quite a bit of opposition to the idea of a >>>>>>>>centralised angency and a lot of paranoid responses to it. The >>>>>>>>more I post on the subject, and the clearer the system has become, >>>>>>>>concerns have dwindled. The main opposition now comes from those >>>>>>>>advocating 'anti-spam software' and this is just to protect >>>>>>>>financial considerations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>'GIEIS' is the only proposal I have ever seen that can stop all >>>>>>>>fraudulent email. Are you aware of any others? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm am in the process of designing an Internet draft of the system. >>>>>>>>It is a major task as there is a lot to go through. I have 30 >>>>>>>>pages of comments alone to address, however, all the comments have >>>>>>>>a resolution within the 'GIEIS' system. I will post a complete >>>>>>>>accurate proposal of the system in the next few days once I have >>>>>>>>compiled all the information together. It will refer to both >>>>>>>>local, global, consent and forced issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" >>>>>>>>>,research@solidmatrix.com >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:52:34 -0400 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Take a look at today's message from the chair, Paul Judge, on this >>>>>>>>>subject >>>>>>>>>(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05968.html). >>>>>>>>>The consent framework that we are discussing is not limited to >>>>>>>>>end-users only. The generic proposal that I put forth concentrated >>>>>>>>>specifically on the end-user and this is probably what is throwing you off. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>At 02:46 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This I understand very well. What I am asking is, have you been >>>>>>>>>>able to overcome any of the limitations I mentioned? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>>>>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:41:54 -0400 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>First of all take a look a the group's charter >>>>>>>>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). As the charter states >>>>>>>>>>>we are seeking to define an overall consent framework and fit in >>>>>>>>>>>all the different spam proposals into it. The proposal below was >>>>>>>>>>>put forth to solicit opinions and ideas from people on consent >>>>>>>>>>>in general and the consent framework in particular. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Yakov >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>At 01:20 AM 6/30/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Yakov, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. It is not effective in >>>>>>>>>>>>eliminating spam, the end user still recieves it and has to >>>>>>>>>>>>deal with it. Also, it does not address the main issue about >>>>>>>>>>>>spam and that is the roughly 30% band-width absorbed across the >>>>>>>>>>>>Internet by it. All this seems to do is sort it at the recieving end. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I also read something about a confirmation being sent back from >>>>>>>>>>>>the server, this is just an adaptation of challange response. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>It also does not address the issue of spammer's who use their >>>>>>>>>>>>own mail servers. >>>>>>>>>>>>Can you clear any of these problems up? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Mark McCarron. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:23 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > To: asrg@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Subject: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > I would like to provide a generic proposal for >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > consent-based system >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > as per >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > charter: >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 1. Users and/or ISP define rules and filters to=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>filter incoming=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email. Rules/filters are decided by end users and ISPs, >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > and are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > mandated. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Every user/ISP can define its own policies ranging=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>from banning=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > all email not digitally signed to blocking HTML. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 2. For each email user, the MUA or the ISP maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > whitelist of trusted >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > senders, blacklist of blocked senders and a graylist of >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > unknown senders. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Whitelisted senders go the inbox, graylisted senders >>>>>>>>>>>>> go to >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > the bulk folder, >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > and blacklisted senders are either in the spam folder or >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > erased. 3. Whitelists are not only a list of email >>>>>>>>>>>>> addresses >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > of trusted senders, >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > but to avoid sender spoofing also have additional >>>>>>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > such as digital >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > signatures, certificates, passwords, tokens, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 4. Additional automatic whitelist rules are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>> as such >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email from >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > trusted senders (e.g. Habeas) is automatically goes >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > inbox unless >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > blacklisted, etc. C/R systems are also integrated and >>>>>>>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > receiving a >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > positive response automatically whitelist the sender. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 5. Additional automatic blacklist rules are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email coming >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > from known open relays is blocked. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > 6. Whitelists, graylists and blacklists are stored >>>>>>>>>>>>> hashed or >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > encrypted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > protect privacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Any thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Yakov >>>>>> >>>>>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! >>>>>>http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger >>>> >>>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>>Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Asrg mailing list >>>Asrg@ietf.org >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > >_________________________________________________________________ >Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger >http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 16:05:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14151 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UK5GU22116 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X4tn-0005kd-Tn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14141; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X4tm-0003xh-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X4tg-0003xe-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X4tY-0005iV-WD; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:05:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X4tP-0005iD-NY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14136 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X4tO-0003xU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:50 -0400 Received: from [66.111.4.2] (helo=www.fastmail.fm) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X4tD-0003xL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:39 -0400 Received: from www.fastmail.fm (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCCA37F04; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=www.fastmail.fm) by messagingengine.com with SMTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:14 -0400 X-Mail-from: matthew@elvey.com X-Spam-score: 0 X-Epoch: 1057003454 X-Sasl-enc: sQBj38MnfacVwmJQP1cyeg Received: from elvey.com (adsl-66-126-168-113.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [66.126.168.113]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8D637DC3; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F0097BB.2000608@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030612 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 - Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability References: <3EFDF186.5080909@elvey.com> <200306282119.h5SLJq2v002654@calcite.rhyolite.com> In-Reply-To: <200306282119.h5SLJq2v002654@calcite.rhyolite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:04:11 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vernon Schryver wrote: >>From: Matthew Elvey >> >> >>Boy, it seems like an increasing number of the posts I've seen since >>this list started come from posters who seem to be gravely misinformed >>or deliberately spreading misinformation. [...] >> >> It seems like the discussion of the most promising proposals is >>exceedingly rare. :-( >> >> > >We agree about some of that, but we may disagree about which is >the information and which is the misinformation. [...] > >The most reasonable ASRG thread concerned Graylisting. That report >was of measured results from real code in the real world, unlike >the white papers about RMX, consent, and the rest. > >Various spam filtering is done on at least 50% of all mailboxes. >(Doesn't Brightmail claim 40%?) If those filters are at least 50% >effective, then more than 25% of all spam in the Internet is already >being handled. That's consistent with the reports of many that >their personal spam loads are lower than they were years ago. Many >mailboxes are like mine, suffering an entirely tolerable load of >spam of fewer than 1-4 spam/week. > Your <4/week number must be net (after applying good antispam measures, and not counting the spam folder you need to scan for false positives) or you are an outlier. Are you saying that the claims of Postini, Brightmail, Hotmail, (and a bunch of nanae posters) all showing that around half of email is spam are wrong? (73%, 2/5, 80%, various, of all email, respectively, for their systems; URLs available; just ask here) Your DCC seems to be a very good system, but it causes false positives, so you have to go through what it thinks is spam, (or bounce it) right? What are average DCC user false positive rates? Do you think DCC alone is a solution that works well for now (like bayesian filtering), or one that will also work well in the long term without needing to participate in a continuing arms race? I use SpamAssassin (not the latest version, and w/o custom weights, or SMTP-time 4xx/5xx bouncing unfortunately; my ISP isn't perfect; I've complained), and I get a couple dozen spam a day that have lower scores than my non-spam. I don't even know how much really spammy spam I get, because I delete or bounce it. It's so much that I couldn't reasonably go through my spammy spam looking for false positives. That's not a tolerable load, IMO. I should keep it for a few days to check. >Contrast that fact with the positions of advocates for various silver >bullets. They talk as if public, long term mailboxes like mine must >receive many spam/day and about stopping practically all of that spam >with their wonderful solutions. None advert to the fact that at least >half of the field has alreading been taken by others who range from >silent (e.g. Postini, and SpamPal) to practically silent (Brightmail >and Cloudmark) to extremely quiet (SpamAssassin).[...] > What do you mean by silent? That they silence the noise that is spam? I am skeptical that SpamPal (which is purely DNSRBL-based), today, is gonna eliminate all my spam, or work w/o a ton of false positives. "SpamPal will not be able to detect all of your spam. However, I think it will detect enough to make a considerable difference!" - the spampal site BTW, what RBLs does SpamPal currently use by default? Anyone? > > > > > >>... >> Result: the Internet is RMX ready >>for any domain that wishes to do so to roll out and have it be highly >>effective. >> >> > >Effective in what way? > Effective in preventing abuse 'from' their domain. >The most commonly used sender domain names in >spam are those of the free providers. (My measurements on ~30K recent >spam imply >40% of spam currently involves free provider sender >domains.) Please offer some evidence that the major free mail providers >would go along any sort of RMX system. > But having that evidence ahead of time is not a realistic possibility, even if RMX were a mathematically proven silver bullet (it's not a silver bullet at all, but it could be a component of a silver bullet, IMO). They're not gonna come out in favor of this stuff ahead of time. Hotmail and Yahoo are pro-spam (they are on record as opposing California's SB 12, which is going to be voted on tomorrow, BTW.) They would only do so under pressure. Pressure that would build, as email sent 'from' domains that don't implement RMX gets to be a progressively more reliable indicator of spam. That pressure would largely come from their own users, whose email would be getting filtered because they hadn't implemented RMX. > Outblaze is widely seen as >one of the most anti-spam free providers. Please point out the words >in a web page (perhaps starting at http://outblaze.com/index.php ) >where the owners of the 30,000,000 Outblaze mailboxes are told to send >only through Outblaze's servers. Feel free to point out such words >in Hotmail's, Yahoo's, or some other major free (or non-free) mail >service provider's terms of service. > flamer. chill. Your tone is so unpleasant I'm tempted to just ignore you completely. Tone it down if you want to continue the conversaion, please. Ask Suresh yourself if he thinks Outblaze would be up for this. Outblaze ALREADY makes this difficult: any mail sent 'from' an outblaze account not through their servers that bounces gets filed in /dev/null. So I suspect they may be up for it. Besides, there are a lot of major providers who utterly fail to enforce their TOS, such as Verio, so what TOS say or don't say is of little import. > > > > >> Trying to get the majority of the world's MUA end users to >>upgrade is much more difficult, IMO. >>I had cisco.com and some other major domains whitelisted for a while, >>but had to remove 'em due to repeated spam 'From' them. >>abuse@.com seemed uninterested in pursuing abuse of their >>trademark. >> >> > >That's interesting when you think about it. Please offer some evidence >other than your personal assurances that Cisco would restrict employees >from sending mail with cisco.com sender addresses from random locations >including their homes, customer sites, hotels, and even airplanes in >order to stop that abuse of their trademark. > Chill. Any Cisco employee who is going to be connecting to the 'net for work will connect to cisco over a VPN from said random locations and would have full access to cisco SMTP servers. Ok, so it's unlikely, but perhaps they can't send from cisco.com from their cellphones without some work (some cellphones support SMTP already, and probably some support smtp-auth as well). It's unlikely, but perhaps a VPN or smtp-auth connection won't be practical from 30,000 feet. If so, so their mail in these very rare cases comes from airline.dom or cellphonecompany.dom. Big deal? > > > > >>... >> >> >>>The issue is that people send mail "from" one domain while using the >>>mail servers of another. This is done all the time for perfectly >>>legitimate reasons. Not only is it done on an individual level, it is >>>also done regularly in mass commercial mailings (which are sent by one >>>company on behalf of another). Using the "reply to" to authenticate >>>breaks all of that. Yahoo users can only send mail using Yahoo's web >>>mail. Macromedia can't send mail from "support@macromedia.com" using >>>mx0's mail servers, and so on. >>> >>> >>This capability is NOT broken with the RMX proposal. Any legitimate >>users WILL be able to use the domain of their choice. There are at >>least 3 ways yahoo users could continue to use their own servers in an >>RMX-compatible world. >> >> > >That is so wrong that it qualifies as what you called "misinformation." >Why didn't you touch on those three ways Yahoo uses could use "their >own servers"? > Chill! 1)Yahoo doesn't implement RMX on its domain. Anyone can still send 'from' yahoo.com from any server. This is the easiest solution. RMX isn't mandatory for all domains, remember? Or did you not actually read the proposal that you so harshly criticize? 2)They modify the 'to' addresses from user@example.com to user@example.com.yahoo.com, and yahoo resends it for them using the RMX- authorized servers, after checking that it's 'from' a yahoo user. How good this check is is up to yahoo*, and would impact their reputation if they employed this scheme. 3)People can ask/pay yahoo to list their servers. (Ok, so this doesn't scale, but solutions 1 and 2 would work, realistically. I think I had another scheme, but seem to have forgotten it.) B)Of course Yahoo could also implement RMX on its domain and allow yahoo mail users to use an SMTP server they've set up, with security of their choice*. *e.g. The security could be smtp-auth, or a variant of POP before SMTP, or allowing users to approve an SMTP server that can relay for them, or just a check on whether it's a valid user, or whatever. >Was it because expecting users to adjust the DNS >records for the IP addresses from which they are sending mail at >the moment would sound so completely unrealistic? > Dammit, you're antagonistic. It seems you don't understand the protocol at all (or at least the RFC I read). How it normally works: Nearly everyone sends mail through their ISP's SMTP server, whether that be an earthlink, or their employer. It's the IP of that server that needs to be in the RMX records! Not the user's IP. If they're doing that, then there's some level of security on the SMTP server, allowing them to use it, or it's an open relay, and is already broken, as many servers are already blocking it for that reason. So there are no DNS records for users to update! Just the ISP admin, IF they want to protect their domain name from abuse, can CHOOSE to set it up, adjustments would be needed very infrequently. > >Some RMX-like proposals require adjusting among the RRs of the SMTP >client based on its IP address. Those are merely grossly implausible. >Other RMX-like proposals that use RRs in the envelope sender zone >domain are worse, given the fact that free providers show no signs of >objecting to their users sending from elsewhere. > > > > >>... >>In an RMX world, domain-based DNSRBLs can be highly effective, with low >>false positives and low false negatives. >> >> > >Domain and IP address based DNS based blacklists can be highly effective >with quite low false positive and a usefully low false negative rates >outside RMX worlds. > They're useful (especially with scoring systems like SpamAssassin), but standard IP based blocklists alone will never be highly accurate in terms of positives and negatives. >The reason that there are so few domain based DNS blacklists is >that the easy choices fairly static, and because the legal liabilities >sound worse. > I think it's mainly because IP addresses can't be forged and domains can. SpamPal doesn't support them yet, either. With RMX, domain-based blocklists can have much lower false rates than IP-based blocklists. Abuse desks and IP-based blocklists are better off as well, because an abuse desk can identify a joe-job/forged abuse report a bit more easily, and have more evidence to show it to be a forgery. A little work implementing RMX would allow a lot of abuse desk work to be eliminated. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 17:13:43 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16728 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5ULDFw06021 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X5xb-0001Z2-Ku for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16718; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X5xZ-0004Ps-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:13 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X5xT-0004Pp-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X5xN-0001Vj-2b; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X5xA-0001TZ-EP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:12:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16704 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X5x8-0004PM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:12:46 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([199.172.62.103] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X5wx-0004Oo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:12:35 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ULC1a7025318; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:12:01 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15648; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:12:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16128.42911.833141.978283@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Barry Shein , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627183610.00b3d8f0@pop.pocketmail.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030627183610.00b3d8f0@pop.pocketmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: What ISPs do about infected computers? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:11:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although not 100% on point one problem I see from this (ISP) end is that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that "spamming" (somewhere along the continuum) is reasonably acceptable behavior and ISPs who harass them over it are kinda like librarians always going SHHHH!, self-appointed pointy-headed morality guardians. Not the Ralsky-type spammer of course, but the more innocuous kind doing it for himself. In the past few days I had gotten a couple (two) very credible complaints about a small commercial customer who I had noticed was sending out a lot of email (a lot of it was getting stuck in the queue, you notice...) So I sent him e-mail telling him that since we're forced to respond to complaints further complaints would be billed at $50/event, and excessive complaints would terminate their account with us (hey, it was only two complaints, but I didn't like the odor.) Of course he called asking to speak to me and gave me the usual "is it illegal?", "how do you judge something is spam?" to which I mostly stuck to my guns and told him I don't really care if it is spam or not at this point, I just know we're not going to spend our good time responding to complaints that it is spam, justified or not, for free. You have to pay your lawyer even if you're innocent, right? Take it or leave it, that's our position. You sent out the mail which elicited this, right? If your contention is that you didn't send the mail then of course I'd relent. But you can't expect us to just ante-up any arbitrary amount of our personnel time responding to complaints, justified or not, which arise from your business activity. That evoked somewhat of an admission that he'd been scanning (I think manually) for web sites with mailing lists which seemed related to his product (pretty vaguely related based on the complaints) and adding them to his list with an unsubscribe option on their mailing. I told him THAT'S SPAMMING! Ask the list administrator if it's ok to send to their list, don't just send it, you'll get complaints, and I'll bill you and eventually after several just cut you off entirely. He seemed pretty angry at me, what right did I have blah blah blah, the usual nihilistic babble. His product itself seems to be quite legitimate, a software package for engineering design which I know has been around for years tho I think they've never made much money on it. There appear to be several employees over there. I said look, if you don't want to curb your behavior, and you resent paying for our time which you incur out of our control, then in all honesty I don't want you as a customer. He made one last smarmy remark and hung up, I could just about hear him saying "asshole!" just after the call ended. But in all honesty this is not your typical spammer, not by a long shot. They put their real name, address and phone number on the e-mail, for starters, and their business and product is legitimate and has been around for years. But that's where we are, kinda stuck in the middle as customers who aren't exactly axe-murderers figure some behaviors we might call "spamming" is maybe a good way to drum up some business. It sucks, all around. One reason it sucks is that the public, the sort of people who maybe are rationalizers but not far out of bounds, are convincing themselves that if they get a 100 come-ons a day in their mailbox for all kinds of fraud and porn etc then how wrong could it be for their wonderful and honest product? And boy-o-boy they could use the cheap advertising what with sales soft and the landlord hounding them for the rent etc. I think this is another dimension of trouble unless someone can come up with a super-clean way to just make spam technically impossible; this sort of violator isn't likely to try to drive through a jersey barrier, even if he will pass you on the right in the breakdown lane, if you get my drift. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 17:19:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16829 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5ULJC207537 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X63M-0001xU-46 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16824; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X63J-0004Rn-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X63E-0004Rk-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X63B-0001r0-H4; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X62y-0001os-PR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16820 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X62w-0004Rf-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:46 -0400 Received: from pcls4.std.com ([199.172.62.106] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X62l-0004Ra-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:35 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ULIDg9003250; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:13 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16963; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16128.43284.257632.413036@world.std.com> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Barry Shein , Yakov Shafranovich , Kee Hinckley , Asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: <20030628014626.C45744@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626205937.00b3e2e8@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626111203.00b4eb68@std5.imagineis.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030627120912.00babb10@std5.imagineis.com> <16124.53326.946533.799165@world.std.com> <20030628014626.C45744@Space.Net> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:18:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok ok, fair enough, but there is something so low-intensity about zombie spambots that it seems to have gone on for months with people only noticing the result. That makes it different. It's also not generally complained about as a DDoS except as a metaphor (it gets so bad it's LIKE a DDoS when the queues get all jammed with spam slowing down real mail service), and/or by ISPs who are privately held because you won't hear a publically-traded company complain that they're getting the stuffing kicked out of them by criminals they can't do much about, except in very measured language. -b On June 28, 2003 at 01:46 maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net (Markus Stumpf) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:16:30PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > Um, when have you ever seen a DDOS attack with thousands of computers > > are spewing packets? Do you have an example? > > http://www.caida.org/projects/dns-analysis/oct02dos.xml > DDos against the root DNS servers > > http://www.brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=92 > SQL/Slammer took down half of Korea and Bank of America > > There are a lot more examples... > > \Maex > > -- > SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 > Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 > "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 18:45:41 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20318 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UMjCR26018 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Oa-0006lZ-Bx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20311; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7OX-0004v5-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:09 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7OR-0004v2-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7OO-0006jg-Sj; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:45:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7NW-0006hw-BT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:44:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20307 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7NT-0004uy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:44:03 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7NI-0004uq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:43:52 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mrobi@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5UMhMiM012663 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:43:24 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12040; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:43:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16128.48391.681852.355928@world.std.com> To: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:43:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On June 28, 2003 at 16:19 jrk@merseymail.com (Jon Kyme) wrote: > > away, then it's a DDoS attack. This is the future of spam for > > *everyone*. I was saying this 3-4 years ago, and almost no on > > believed me. If we don't do SOMETHING to solve the spam problem, then > > 3-4 years from now, my current problems will seem minor, and NO ONE > > will be using email. > > > > If no-one is using (receiving) email, why will the spammers > send it? Another way of putting is that e-mail will become useful ONLY for sending and receiving spam. It's kinda like terra-forming, it's spamma-forming the mail system. This is partly due to the flood of garbage mail's become, and partly due to the rise in false positives as people desparately try to make the service useful rather than go back to long-distance charges and telephone tag. So, email will only be useful for mildly unreliable communications, stuff you don't care a lot if you accidentally miss or throw away, that is, spam. If that doesn't have a positive reward ratio for you then you'll give up on it entirely. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 18:51:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20508 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UMpBf27947 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7UN-0007Gg-93 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20470; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7UK-0004wm-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7UE-0004wj-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7UE-0007AL-6t; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:51:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Tp-00078v-Qx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20466 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Tm-0004wY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:34 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([199.172.62.104] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Tb-0004wV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:23 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (mrobi@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5UMoDiM021723 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:14 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13623; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16128.48803.260211.776329@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] In case anyone thought Barry was exaggerating In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:50:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Then what (i.e. when spam kills e-mail as we know it)? The RBOCs will grab control of it as a special-case of SMS and charge $.15/message. It's obvious (to me, anyhow) where this is going if the trend isn't turned. As the exasperated parent would say to the cranky kid: You want something to cry about? *I'LL* give you something to cry about?! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 18:56:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20730 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UMuAq29349 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7ZC-0007dI-ID for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20714; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Z9-0004zr-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Z3-0004zm-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Z4-0007Uy-Tm; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Yy-0007Tj-6o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20703 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Yu-0004zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:52 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Yj-0004zF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:41 -0400 Received: from scot.demon.co.uk ([158.152.23.217] helo=siliconglen.com) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 19X7Y0-00049P-0Z for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:54:58 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Craig Cockburn Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142433.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142433.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-U () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:53:43 +0100 In message <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142433.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com>, Yakov Shafranovich writes >>>>>. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a big problem as >>>>>well since no one would want to use an alternative system unless >>>>>many people will switch over to it and many people will not switch >>>>>others use it. I'm sorry Alexander Graham Bell, we can't possibly accept this new fangled telephone thing you've just invented because the above quote claims a catch 22 for deployment. It'll never work >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This system is very similar, in fact almost identical, to the >>>>>>>>>>current one employed by Hotmail. I thought the issue with hotmail was that you just made the spam appear to come from the recipient or from one of the main hotmail "special offer" accounts and then it would just sail right through. Certainly this happens with mailblocks - it can't block mail apparently coming from yourself. -- Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994. Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 18:56:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20731 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UMuA129366 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7ZC-0007dX-O5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20715; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Z9-0004zv-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Z3-0004zn-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Z4-0007UT-GA; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Yy-0007Te-4y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20707 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Yu-0004zd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:52 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Yj-0004zD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:41 -0400 Received: from scot.demon.co.uk ([158.152.23.217] helo=siliconglen.com) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 19X7Xz-00049O-0Z for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:55:00 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Craig Cockburn Subject: Re: [Asrg] News Article - Spam on cellphones References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030629141445.00b3c458@solidmatrix.com> <878yrkhh67.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: <878yrkhh67.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-U () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:46:56 +0100 In message <878yrkhh67.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes >Yakov Shafranovich writes: > >> There is no reason why cell phone companies around the world could >> not have developed a separate messaging framework NOT based on SMTP >> and email. > >SMS (at least in GSM-based networks) differs a lot from email: limited >size, messages may be discarded etc. It's certainly not similar to >SMTP. > And with SMS I don't think there's any way to prevent the sender knowing their message was successfully delivered if they sent it with a delivery receipt. Ideal for spammers unfortunately. -- Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994. Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 18:56:39 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20732 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UMuAZ29383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7ZC-0007dg-RE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20716; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Z9-0004zx-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Z3-0004zo-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Z4-0007Ty-4L; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7Yy-0007TZ-3I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20706 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Yu-0004ze-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:52 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7Yj-0004zE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:55:41 -0400 Received: from scot.demon.co.uk ([158.152.23.217] helo=siliconglen.com) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 19X7Xz-00049N-0Z for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:55:00 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Craig Cockburn Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fearghas McKay - What's your point?? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-U () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:44:47 +0100 In message , Mark McCarron writes > >You really missed a whole lot about me, for starters, I'm a genius. Evidently not when it comes to communications skills, however. Could you do us a favour and keep the personal preening off the list? -- Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994. Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 19:07:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21218 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5UN7H032274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7jx-0008OT-2Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21194; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7jo-00055e-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:08 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7jj-00055b-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7jh-0008G2-GM; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X7j6-0008F7-Ef for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:06:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21122 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7j3-00055I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:06:21 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X7iq-00055B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:06:09 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630190521.00b5b2a8@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Craig Cockburn , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:05:22 -0400 At 11:53 PM 6/30/2003 +0100, Craig Cockburn wrote: >In message <5.2.0.9.2.20030630142433.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com>, Yakov >Shafranovich writes > >>>>>>. Third, inter-operability with existing email is a big problem as >>>>>>well since no one would want to use an alternative system unless many >>>>>>people will switch over to it and many people will not switch others use it. > > >I'm sorry Alexander Graham Bell, we can't possibly accept this new fangled >telephone thing you've just invented because the above quote claims a >catch 22 for deployment. It'll never work There was no existing telephone system in place or anything remotely related. Unfortunatly in our case email systems are all over and very entrenched. To uproot all of them is not an easy task. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 21:20:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25343 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h611JuC27736 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X9oK-0007DH-9z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25335; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X9o7-0005sj-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:43 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X9nX-0005sd-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X9nR-00076j-Gy; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19X9nO-00076U-KE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:18:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25300 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X9nM-0005sU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:18:56 -0400 Received: from bay8-f43.bay8.hotmail.com ([64.4.27.43] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19X9nB-0005ry-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:18:45 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:17:46 -0700 Received: from 62.252.128.5 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:17:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] From: "Mark McCarron" To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2003 01:17:46.0682 (UTC) FILETIME=[947F29A0:01C33F6E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id VAA25301 Subject: [Asrg] (no subject) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:17:46 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thankyou for your comments, I have replied to everyone in a single respon= se.=20 Please find my responses in the body of the message. This posting relates to the 'GIEIS' system, viewable here at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis The site will be updated tonight or tomorrow. Mark McCarron. >From: Mally Mclane >To: Mark McCarron >CC: >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Extended Overview Released >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:57:14 +0200 (CEST) > >hi, > > > Opposition to the Proposal > > > > The opposition to this proposal falls into two main categories. Thos= e=20 >who > > are paranoid about a centralised agency analyzing email transmissions= ,=20 >and > > software companies that are either based or have products based on > > 'anti-spam' techniques. 'GIEIS' would make these products and compan= ies > > completely redundant on a global basis. > >and.. > >3) Those people (myself included) who won't be forced to move to a >completely new email client to send mail. > >I realise you have heard this before, but you are asking the entire >internet 'world' to move across to a new system from one that already >works. > Mark's Response: As far as normal end-users go, a simple update to their email client is a= ll=20 that would be required. Updates happen all the time. SMTP is a dying=20 protocol, imagine what it would be like in 10 years? >Yes, it has spam within it, but tools exist to filter this out to some >degree. I cannot see anyway how you will ever manage to get this system >up and working enough to make it worthwhile. > Mark's Response: This will be easy enough. There will be a period of transition. Its not= as=20 hard as everyone thinks. I agree it will be a challange, but hey come on= ,=20 its not rocket science. >Do you have a prototype working anywhere that we can look at? > Mark's Response: The system we tested it on was a private network, also, it wasn't using t= he=20 full aspects of the 'GIEIS' design. It was just a feasibility test and i= t=20 responded well, in fact, 100%. >I sincerely doubt you would get the hotmail and aol's of this world to >adopt such a system, it's too restrictive ([i] how would you handle peop= le >signing up for free hotmail accounts?), and they are unlikely to literal= ly >hand control of their email across to a 3rd party. > Mark's Response: Please provide a more detailed description of how you believe the system = is=20 'too restrictive', just making that statement is very unclear. Also, MSN= =20 (who owns hotmail) has changed its email system 3 times in the last 6 yea= rs=20 alone. For those of you who remember MSN started out as an x.25 network=20 without any pop3 servers. If I remember correctly they were a form of IM= AP=20 (I'll check this out), it didn't even support MIME, you had to download t= he=20 'decode shell extension'. Then they moved to pop 3, then they moved on t= o=20 web based servers. Hotmail has excellent anti-spam policies and in busin= ess=20 terms, it would a lot of send sense for a 3rd party to protect their emai= l=20 systems. They outsource their technical support already. Also, nobody s= aid=20 anything about handing over control to anyone. >It would be nice to live in a world free from spam, but not a restrictiv= e >world. Mark's Response: Please explain this comment. >From: Mally Mclane >To: >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:02:34 +0200 (CEST) > >hi mark, > >whats the url of the website you used below? > >m Mark's Response: http://www.ciphertrust.com > > >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > > > >X-Originating-IP: [62.252.200.188] > > >X-Originating-Email: [markmccarron_itt@hotmail.com] > > >From: "Mark McCarron" > > >To: research@solidmatrix.com > > >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:33:33 +0000 > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2003 18:33:34.0102 (UTC) > > >FILETIME=3D[1CD52360:01C33F36] > > > > > > > > >I believe the answer is yes. I just used a calculator at Paul Judge= 's > > >website and I put in the values of 1000 employees with an average=20 >salary > > >of $15,000 and recieving 20 spam messages a day. It calculated that= it > > >would cost the business $31,250 per year. > > > > > >The issue is not going to come down to end-users, but business > > >losses. Add to this the financial damage caused by virus', worm's, > > >trojans and hoax emails this cost just skyrockets per annum. The=20 >future > > >is only set to get worse, especially with more eastern block countri= es > > >expanding their networks without the proper legal frameworks. > > > > > >Mark McCarron. > > > > > > > > >>From: Yakov Shafranovich > > >>To: "Mark McCarron" ,asrg@ietf.org > > >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal > > >>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:26:28 -0400 > > >> > > >>This raises an interesting issue for the group in general. If the=20 >current > > >>spam problem is not fixed, would there be a move to proprietary > > >>alternative email solutions such as this one? > > >> >From: Mally Mclane >To: Yakov Shafranovich >CC: Mark McCarron , >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:03:29 +0200 (CEST) > >hi, > >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > This raises an interesting issue for the group in general. If the=20 >current > > spam problem is not fixed, would there be a move to proprietary=20 >alternative > > email solutions such as this one? > >No. > >It's too much hassle and too much outlay. Mark's Response: If you add up the cost of spam, virus', trojans, worms, and email hoaxes = to=20 business it would far exceed (in one year alone) the cost of implementing= =20 the 'GIEIS' system. >From: "C. Wegrzyn" >To: Mark McCarron >CC: asrg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Extended Overview Released >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:03:47 -0400 > >Why not just use a VPN - point to point - and I can reject any connectio= n=20 >that I don't like! This seems to not require a centralized anything. > >Chuck Wegrzyn > Mark's Response: I don't think you quite understand the difference between email and a VPN= . =20 A VPN (Virtual Private Network) is for connecting remote computers to a=20 private network as though they were physically located on that network. =20 Also, your machine would need to be on anytime someone wanted to connect = to=20 you to share files, etc. The overhead, in terms of bandwidth, is=20 substantial for a VPN. > >Mark McCarron wrote: > >>GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam Syste= m >>a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper >> >>Copyright, including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003. >> >> >>Introduction >> >>'GIEIS' has a global range in its application and is a hybrid=20 >>consent/force model for prevention of fraudulent email. 'GIEIS' deals=20 >>with both sender and recipient and acts as a 'gate-keeper' to the netwo= rks=20 >>under its protection. 'GIEIS' is not just a method of eliminating spam= =20 >>but also, virus transmission, worm transmission, trojan transmission,=20 >>chain-mail, email hoaxes and all non-compliant mail. The 'GIEIS' syste= m=20 >>is designed in such a manner that bypassing the system is impossible. >> >> >>Architecture Overview >> >>'GIEIS' is a new architecture for email. It extends the SMTP protocol=20 >>currently in use and requires the establishment of a centralised struct= ure=20 >>for email verification. 'GIEIS' utilises the common point in all email= =20 >>transmission from any source, the ISP. The proposed system will route = all=20 >>email from an ISP's customer base through a special server known as an=20 >>'Email Authentication Server' (EAS). At this point, special encrypted=20 >>codes are appended to the header that identify the account, the 'EAS'=20 >>server, and the ISP from which the email was sent. A random encrypted= ID=20 >>code is also appended and these details are stored to the 'EAS''s=20 >>database. From here, the email is then distributed to the recipients=20 >>'EAS'. The recipient's 'EAS' then contacts the 'GIEIS' central servers= =20 >>and 'GIEIS' confirms the special encrypted codes held in the header of = the=20 >>email. 'GIEIS' achieves this by communicating with the sender's 'EAS',= =20 >>confirming the database entry against codes received, deleting the=20 >>database entry (or marking confirmed), and relaying the results via=20 >>encrypted transmission to the recipient's 'EAS'. This will result in o= ne=20 >>of two possible actions; either the email is sent to the recipient's em= ail=20 >>inbox or is deleted. >> >> >>Encryption >> >>This would most likely be a modified form of OpenPGP. It would be base= d=20 >>on a combination of ciphers rather than just one. Ciphers being=20 >>considered are TripleDES, CAST and Twofish. RSA encryption has been=20 >>deemed to weak for this purpose. Codes and encryption passphrases will= be=20 >>changed frequently automatically. Updates to 'EAS' will also be=20 >>automated. >> >> >>Abuse of Domestic Accounts >> >>To prevent such abuses of these accounts several measures will be put i= n=20 >>place. A limit on the amount of recipient's will be imposed per email,= =20 >>any email which exceeds the limit will be automatically spanned as=20 >>separate emails by the clients software. The 'EAS' will refuse any=20 >>non-compliant email. A limit will be imposed on the amount of emails t= hat=20 >>may be sent daily from any account. >> >>There are currently several proposals to limit the rate at which emails= =20 >>can be sent. The first proposal is to have the sender validate each em= ail=20 >>by entering text based on a downloaded graphic. This suggestion has=20 >>limitations in respect to the visually impaired and blind members of th= e=20 >>Internet. This could be replaced by a simple puzzle, such as a questio= n,=20 >>for example how many days are there in a week? This would be very=20 >>difficult to automate. >> >>A second proposal, that may include the first proposal, is that a delay= of=20 >>5 to 10 seconds be imposed for each email sent. The 'EAS' would contro= l=20 >>the rate, not the client software. >> >>The third proposal, which we believe to be the most acceptable, is an=20 >>incrementing delay based on the volume of emails sent. Every 3 emails=20 >>queued would result in an additional one second delay added. For examp= le,=20 >>if 33 emails were queued, the first batch of 3 would be sent and a then= =20 >>pause of one second. The next 3 emails would then be sent and a pause = of=20 >>2 seconds would occur. By the time we get to 30 emails there would be = a=20 >>10 second delay before the next batch of 3 emails were sent. As you ca= n=20 >>see this delay would continue to grow in respect to the amount of email= s=20 >>queued. This would force spammers to have a large amount of accounts a= nd=20 >>the machines to connect to them. The time of opening new accounts=20 >>manually and the cost (machines and time) would be prohibitive. >> >> >>Business Accounts >> >>There has been some concern over how 'GIEIS' will handle business email= =20 >>and large volume traffic. All businesses will have to register with th= eir=20 >>ISP and provide company registration details. These details are then=20 >>passed to the 'GIEIS' centre where a business code will be issued. The= =20 >>business' email will then be routed through the ISP's 'EAS'. The proce= ss=20 >>of sending bulk email will be transparent. The software will compile a= =20 >>list of domains that it will require access bulk access to and the amou= nt=20 >>of emails to be sent. This list will be transmitted to the ISP's 'EAS'= . =20 >>The ISP's 'EAS' will then contact the 'GIEIS' central servers transmitt= ing=20 >>the encrypted business code and the list of domains. 'GIEIS' will then=20 >>contact the domains on the list an authorize a bulk reception from the=20 >>transmitting domain and the amount of emails to be received, again via=20 >>encrypted message. 'GIEIS' waits until it receives an acknowledgement f= rom=20 >>each domain and then transmits a ready signal to the ISP's 'EAS' (may a= lso=20 >>include a list of down servers). The ISP's 'EAS' then contacts the=20 >>business' email software and requests a begin of transmission. Any err= ors=20 >>are relayed back to the business. >> >> >>Mailing Lists and Discussion Groups >> >>Mailing lists must contact 'GIEIS' directly for setup and must be=20 >>associated with a bonafide website domain. This domain will be checked= by=20 >>'GIEIS' representative and the hosting company contacted for further=20 >>information. A credit card will be required and a $1 (=A31, 1 euro) ch= arge=20 >>will be made to it. The card details must match those to which the dom= ain=20 >>is registered. Also, a mailing address and telephone contact informati= on=20 >>would be required. They will receive a written copy of the 'Terms of=20 >>Service' which they must sign and send back to 'GIEIS'. Upon reception= =20 >>'GIEIS' will implement the account with their ISP. >> >>The emails then sent by the mailing list will be analyzed by heuristics= . =20 >>Each message will also be parsed for HTML code, such as IMAGE tags and=20 >>jpg, bmp images. As the majority of mailing systems use either ASCII o= r=20 >>UNICODE text only, spam can be detected, blocked and the offender's cre= dit=20 >>card billed with a fine, or the offender prosecuted. Heuristic analysi= s=20 >>will not be a permanent feature, it will most likely be a feature that=20 >>will only be in place for the first 6 months of any new mailing list=20 >>request. On successful completion of this 6 month 'trial period', the=20 >>account will be deemed 'secure', heuristics will be stopped and the sys= tem=20 >>will then use end-user reports only. >> >>Technically, the account will operate in a similar manner to business=20 >>accounts and allow for bulk transmission. >> >> >>Virus/Worm/Trojan Protection >> >>As 'GIEIS' can trace email sending directly to account level. Any form= of=20 >>attack launched on remote machines can be minimised and the perpetrator= =20 >>tracked immediately. Each 'EAS' system will have built-in anti-virus=20 >>scanning software that will scan all outbound email attachments. Any=20 >>infected file will be bounced back to sending system with information o= f=20 >>the virus. This will prevent spread of 'address book' virus' that have= =20 >>become common place within the last few years. The senders 'EAS' will=20 >>inform the user when their daily limit has been reached, it will also=20 >>inform them that if they have not sent this volume that their machine m= ay=20 >>be infected or have been hacked. There will be information on to take=20 >>steps to resolve the problem. >> >>A further extension, under consideration, is the flagging of executable= =20 >>attachments and their spread. This would assist in rapidly identifying= =20 >>new virus'/worms/trojans and 'GIEIS', upon confirmation of a new=20 >>infection, would be able to seal those accounts until updated anti-viru= s=20 >>patterns were installed to all 'EAS's. >> >>A further suggestion, is linking a reporting service from 'GIEIS' direc= tly=20 >>to the computer fraud departments of Police forces globally. This woul= d=20 >>assist in taking immediate action against offenders. >> >> >>Period of Introduction >> >>Until a sufficient amount of ISPs are 'GIEIS Compliant' the 'GIEIS' sys= tem=20 >>will be in a test mode. This will most likely be a period of 6 months,= to=20 >>1 year. A specific date will be chosen from when the system will becom= e=20 >>fully operational. After that date, only 'GIEIS' compliant systems wou= ld=20 >>be able to send email to those domains protected under 'GIEIS'. This=20 >>would force a global update, or many would find their customer base=20 >>rapidly shrinking. >> >>In order to speed the process. 'GIEIS' would be setup in partnership w= ith=20 >>the world's largest providers of ISP and email services. No company co= uld=20 >>afford to be excluded from their domains and adoption would become rapi= d. =20 >>These companies have the legal right to take all steps necessary to=20 >>protect their networks and customer base. >> >> >>Account and Domain Blocking >> >>The 'GIEIS' system will have the ability to suspend email service at=20 >>account level and domain level. Any blockage will be in accordance wit= h=20 >>the 'Terms of Service Agreement'. >> >> >>Terms of Service Agreement, Guidelines and Dispute mechanisms >> >>These will be determined by the members of the IRTF and IETF and confor= m=20 >>to International law. >> >> >>Charges and Fines >> >>Setup fees will be charged for business users. Fines can be imposed, a= s=20 >>per the 'Terms of Service Agreement' and services restricted until fine= s=20 >>are paid in full. >> >> >>'GIEIS' Centre's Legal Status >> >>The 'GIEIS' centre will be a non-profit organization. Its dispute=20 >>mechanism and complaints procedure will be completely transparent and a= ll=20 >>disputes will be posted to the centre's website. There will be no clos= ed=20 >>door policy. The 'GIEIS' system will not be accessible by any company = and=20 >>will be completely independent. It will also not be a government agenc= y=20 >>of any form, it will be a public body. >> >> >>Privacy Concerns >> >>'GIEIS' does not and will not analyze the majority of email transmissio= n,=20 >>unless specifically requested to do so, or when breaches of the 'Terms = of=20 >>Service Agreement' have been made. Also, government agencies already h= ave=20 >>the ability, and the funding, to analyze emails on a global basis. =20 >>'GIEIS' would not be able to compare to the supercomputers used by the=20 >>NSA/CIA (US) and the GCHQ (UK). 'GIEIS' will have a legally binding=20 >>'privacy agreement' and will never distribute, share, or sell any perso= nal=20 >>information. >> >> >>Opposition to the Proposal >> >>The opposition to this proposal falls into two main categories. Those = who=20 >>are paranoid about a centralised agency analyzing email transmissions, = and=20 >>software companies that are either based or have products based on=20 >>'anti-spam' techniques. 'GIEIS' would make these products and companie= s=20 >>completely redundant on a global basis. >> >>Copyright, including intellectual copyright Mark McCarron, 2003. _________________________________________________________________ Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!=20 http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 21:59:56 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26072 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h611xS703930 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAQa-00011J-JD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26057; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAQX-000650-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAQR-00064r-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAQ9-0000uy-DS; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAPY-0000uW-Co for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:58:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26037 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAPV-00064e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:58:21 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAPK-00064A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:58:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 18570 invoked by uid 100); 1 Jul 2003 01:57:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20030701015729.18569.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo In-Reply-To: <000001c33e0f$a1050c40$c8a8a8c0@selfb5zlf10bdt> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 1 Jul 2003 01:57:29 -0000 > Essentially all spam at Yahoo (using Spam Guard) is blocked and > placed into a bulk mail folder. Therefore, there>is no distinction > between saying that a mail message was "placed in the bulk mail > folder" or "blocked by spam filters" ... I checked back with my source, and he confirms that although the details of Yahoo's spam filters are (not surprisingly) confidential, it's clear that like everyone else they both sidestream some mail into bulk mail folders and reject some mail outright. See, for example, their page http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-17.html at which gives mailers advice to keep their mail from being rejected or sidestreamed. In any event, there's no shame in making the occasional mistake, so I'm not going to beat this particular horse any more. But please, let's try not to leap to conclusions in the future. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 22:12:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26537 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h612BX708164 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:11:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAcH-00027b-8A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:11:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26515; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAbk-000217-QG; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:11:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAan-0001tH-AI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:10:01 -0400 Received: from 68.27.158.252 (trilluser@000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net [68.27.158.252]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA26431 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630220922.00ba85f0@solidmatrix.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine), asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Bogus News Article - FTC's do-not-call registry email blocked by Yahoo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:09:23 -0400 At 01:57 AM 7/1/2003 +0000, John R. Levine wrote: > > Essentially all spam at Yahoo (using Spam Guard) is blocked and > > placed into a bulk mail folder. Therefore, there>is no distinction > > between saying that a mail message was "placed in the bulk mail > > folder" or "blocked by spam filters" ... > >I checked back with my source, and he confirms that although the >details of Yahoo's spam filters are (not surprisingly) confidential, >it's clear that like everyone else they both sidestream some mail into >bulk mail folders and reject some mail outright. See, for example, >their page http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-17.html at >which gives mailers advice to keep their mail from being rejected or >sidestreamed. Thank you for pointing out the difference between blocking/rejection and moving email to bulk folders. This is an important distinction that must be kept in mind for the future. >In any event, there's no shame in making the occasional mistake, so >I'm not going to beat this particular horse any more. But please, >let's try not to leap to conclusions in the future. The conclusion was not mine but rather Wired's based on a NetFrameworks's report. I personally was not aware that Yahoo rejects email outright, I though that they put ALL spam into the bulk folder. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 22:27:28 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26912 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h612R1511207 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XArE-0002ug-Vp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:27:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26906; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAr9-0006Fy-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:26:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAqa-0006Fq-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:26:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAqI-0002kI-Er; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAq4-0002jw-V0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:25:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26890 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAq1-0006Fi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:25:45 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XApp-0006Fa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:25:34 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630221600.00b34f90@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Paul Judge , "'asrg@ietf.org'" From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:24:52 -0400 At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:12 AM > > To: asrg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam > > >[..] > > > 2. Consent - these proposals do not try to block the email at > > the sender's > > end, or as at being transferred over the network. Instead, > > they concentrate > > solely at the receiver's point. > >This is not the case. It is most desirable to block unwanted traffic as >close to the source as possible. There is some difficulty in moving the >solution closer to the source in that you are enforcing a policy for all >downstream receivers. Careful policy expression helps here. Can you elaborate on this point? >Overall, I think that consent-based communication as referred to in the >charter includes what you have referred to here as 'consent' and 'network >abuse' models. What I think you are touching on here with these two models >is what I refer to as local vs global spam solutions. A local solution >refers to controlling spam for some individual or organization. I also think >of this as providing symptom relief rather than a real cure. This is >commonly done today with anti-spam tools deployed at the desktop, server, or >gateway. There are a number of commercial and non-commercial solutions that >are quite effective at 'solving the problem' for local environments. > >While many individuals and organizations have deployed such solutions, the >spam problem continues to exist globally. It is even suggested that these >local solutions have increased the global problem since spammers are sending >more. The solution to the global problem requires an understanding of the >adversaries and their motivation. As many have suggested, controlling spam >globally requires reversing the spammers profit model. What I suggest that >is different is that this does not require directly associating a cost with >sending email. > >Just as in any other business, the profit in spamming is equal to revenues >minus costs. In spamming, revenue is equal to the number of spam messages >received times the response rate times the profit per item. Expenses include >the cost of obtaining the lists of email addresses and the cost of sending >the messages. The difference between the amount of spam messages sent and >the number received is a factor of the effectiveness and deployment rate of >anti-spam technologies. User education is able to affect the response rate >as well as the difficulty and costs of obtaining email addresses. Besides >providing a strong deterrence, anti-spam legislation is able to introduce >overhead in the form of the expenses of litigation. > >The consent-based communications paradigm considers this and directly >affects both the number of spam messages sent and the number received. If >you consider this along with the taxonomy that looked at spam prevention, >spam detection and spam response approaches, then the relationship can be >seen between the various anti-spam system proposals, the consent-based >communications paradigm, and global and local spam solutions. > >With that said, I do agree that we need to further document this framework >to provide a clearer view as we deal with this large number of individual >proposals. It seems that without this clarity, many are having trouble >putting everything in context. All, please share your thoughts on this view >of the overall framework. The consent framework on a local level seems simpler to understand than on the global level. Locally the consent framework may consists of various components that will keep track of what the user has consented to, and what email he did not consent to. Some of these consent decisions may be made automatically based on various pieces of information such as RBLs, message content, C/R, etc. Some of them maybe be made manually by the user. However, on the global level how does is the consent framework relevant? Are we talking about different hosts or networks on the Internet expressing combined consent of their users to each other? Or are we simply talking about various systems that collect data to be used on the local level? The charter is a bit murky on this: "Expressing consent is more straightforward on an individual basis; as the solution is moved closer to the source, it is more difficult to express a policy that satisfies all downstream receivers. " Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 22:33:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27031 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h612XQT12306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAxS-0003CP-8W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27022; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAxO-0006Hw-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:22 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAxJ-0006Hp-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAx2-000368-SS; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAwq-000346-Ai for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:32:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27016 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAwi-0006Hl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:32:40 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAwG-0006Hf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:32:13 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630222535.00ba85f0@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: gep2@terabites.com, asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent proposal In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:31:33 -0400 At 11:40 AM 6/30/2003 -0500, gep2@terabites.com wrote: > > ...This can be considered a consent-based concept, as it can be a > parameter at >the ISP end for each mail user. It adds quite a bit of overhead to the mail >server as it requires two additional messages for each one sent. I see it >being part of the MTA process. I send a message to someone. The MTA >replies to the message with a "proof of sender request, " basically a >specially formatted email message that goes back to the server that sent it >based on the return address. > >The idea sounds promising other than that initial, >perhaps-not-quite-fatally-flawed premise. You've fallen into a big trap that >confuses many folks... folks who don't realize that SMTP mail servers and >POP3 >mail servers represent in fact two quite different entities (despite the fact >that SMTP servers at some point talk to POP3 servers). Specifically, at the >sender's send, the SMTP and POP3 mail servers are not only not (usually) the >same program, they are *quite* often not on the same machine (and >moreover, may >not even be under the ownership of the same company!). >[..] This is also a concern with C/R since it relies on a similar approach. Currently I believe C/R companies such as MailBlocks are web based and thus all of their servers are together. Implementing this approach and C/R, would cost users in flexibility to be able to work with multiple servers. This problem might be alleviated slightly by writing a protocol for these servers to communicate with each other, but then all kinds of other problems pop up (mainly resistance to change). >But even disregarding that problem, a more basic issue with this whole >avenue of >thinking is that it has to be handled by basically the whole Net before it >can >be useful... it's not a scheme (as mine is) which can be implemented >incrementally, starting with as little as one single POP3 server. > Unless this POP3 server can communicate with the SMTP server. If a communication protocol exists, then this approach can start of with pairs of SMTP/POP3 servers. Another approach would be to do the verification in the MUA. > > The sender's MTA responds with a "confirmation >request" if it did send the message and the message is now available for >download based on moving it from the pending directory to a user directory. >If there is no response within a certain period the message is discarded. >It's a similar concept that I use when I get a telemarketer who I may want >to pursue what they are selling. I ask for their phone number and call then >back. Granted I don't do this very often as I usually tell them to take me >off their call list and hang up. If this has been mentioned I apologize as >the volume of messages is quite large on this list. >[..] Yes this has been mentioned prior. >[..] > > > The bottom line is that consent should be easy for the general user to deal >with and understand. > >On THAT part we're definitely on the same page. > >How about something like: > >mail to gep2@terabites.com > default > allow plain ASCII > from cluelessaunt@aol.com > allow HTML only safe > allow attachments only (JPG,DOC) > from friend@china.net > allow encoding including (base64,printable) > from george@arthurandersen.com > allow attachments including (XLS) > from internalsupport@mycompany.com > allow HTML including (scripting,Javascript) > allow attachments including executable > from md5hash(reallysensitive@secretisp.gov) > allow attachments including (JPG,ZIP,PGP) > allow encoding including (base64) > from sailboatphotos@yahoogroups.com > allow attachments only (JPG,DOC) > from statements@mybank.com > allow HTML > from susanprogrammer@trustedcompany.com > allow attachments including executable > from tom@adagency.com > allow attachments including (TTF,GIF,DOC,PPT) > from trustedfriendtom@hisisp.com > allow attachments > allow HTML >mail to gep2hobby@somdomain.com > from sailboats@yahoogroups.com > allow attachments only (JPG,GIF) >mail to gep2bot@otherdomain.com > from senderbot@somecompany.com > allow attachments only (ZIP) > from otherbot@othercompany.com > allow attachments only (XML,ZIP) > > >Initially, this permissions list could be simply edited, although >longer-term it >probably should be manipulated by incremental add/update through some kind of >menu system, Web page, or maybe E-mailed commands. A good implementation >would >probably maintain at least two copies of the list, one a local copy on the >user's own machine (just for a safeguard backup copy) and the other at the >user's ISP or domain provider (wherever the filtering is going to be done). > >If one wanted to use hashing or something (I've hinted at that ability above) >there are a variety of things that might be implemented there (again, we >don't >need worldwide consensus for any of my proposals, since they're basically >single-ended and only involve the recipient user and their ISP or domain >provider). Presumably hashing or encryption would be done, if done at >all, in >whatever way would provide adequate security and not revealing secret >information to those who shouldn't have it (and don't have it anyhow). Lots of good ideas here. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jun 30 22:36:06 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27116 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:36:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h612ZcF13050 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:35:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAza-0003OP-Gq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:35:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27090; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAzX-0006Iy-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:35:35 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAzC-0006If-00; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:35:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAz0-0003Hv-51; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19XAyn-0003GE-5j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:34:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27055 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAyj-0006IW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:34:45 -0400 Received: from 000-235-455.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.158.252] helo=68.27.158.252 ident=trilluser) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19XAyV-0006IJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:34:32 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030630223206.00b5b2a8@std5.imagineis.com> X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: Bruce Stephens , asrg@ietf.org From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: Anticipatory whitelisting (was Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal) In-Reply-To: <84fzlvojo4.fsf_-_@cenderis.demon.co.uk> References: <16123.34423.451831.720851@world.std.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030626171332.00bd13e0@pop.pocketmail.com> <16123.34423.451831.720851@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00 X-GCMulti: 1 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:33:55 -0400 At 12:15 PM 6/27/2003 +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote: >Barry Shein writes: >[..] > > D. "For each email user the MUA or the ISP maintains a whitelist..." > > > > MUAs don't maintain whitelists, people do. And that's the crux of > > the problem as has been shown repeatedly, people generally don't > > know the exact details of where the confirmation of their FTC/AT&T > > no-call list is going to come from to put them on their > > whitelist. Etc. > >That's an important problem, and it's one that the IETF (or some other >body, such as W3C) could help to solve. > >Something that would be helpful would be (say) and XML specification >for small documents that web sites could offer for email lists that >they run. Such documents would include information about the >originator address of email from the list (or some other kind of >authenticator), and information for subscribing and unsubscribing from >the list, together with information about the list (description, >perhaps an icon that user agents can use). > >I've phrased that poorly in the sense that the same idea would work >for short-term communication agreements (such as information about a >particular order from amazon.com, say). Some documents could specify >an expiry time for this use. > >Obviously, email clients would parse such documents, and (after >presenting the information and receiving confirmation) would be able >to set up the whitelist (also perhaps arranging a filter to put email >into a special folder), and then tell the originating site about the >desire to accept communications. (I say "email client" on the grounds >that most people use IE/OE, so their email client is also their web >browser. Obviously it would be slightly more complex if the two are >separate, but still readily doable.) > >I'm not sure how the information would be passed to ISPs that offer to >do filtering. As you say, there are privacy issues. However, if >these privacy issues can (to a sufficient extent) be addressed, then a >standardised way for the permission information to be passed to ISPs >would be valuable. > >Even in the absence of spam, that would be handy, since it would make >it easy to manage mailing lists (my MUA could show me a list, and >could automatically filter them into folders). >[..] This is going hand in hand with what Bob Wyman mentioned - we need to define what consent is, how to express it and how to make sure that various mail system can communicate consent between themselves. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg